Funny, I and millions of Americans made out quite well with the tax cuts. I guess the choice is either the people make out well or the government makes out well. When Reid, Frank, Pelosi, et. al are flush, my wallet is much thinner. Hmmm...

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

The continuing error is to call them "tax cuts", since they aren't.  They are marginal tax rate reductions, and there is a profound difference.  The term "tax cuts" gives the false impression that overall tax revenues are being reduced, and that is the opposite of what actually happens with tax rate reductions.

Since most Americans do not have a working knowledge of economics(I fault the govt schools) this sort of Big Lie works very well for the leftie propagandists like Zakaria.

It's also true that deficits are always caused by overspending, not undertaxation.  After all, the Pelosi Congress could live within its means....

Where would we be without the cost of obstructive Dem energy regulation since Carter?  We have lost trillions, at least, in revenue to the private sector, trillions in excessive energy costs, and hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result.

Getting rid of punitive energy taxation and obstructive regulations in the energy market would be many times better than any phony "stimulus package".

There's another problem with what he said. Bush did the tax cuts when the economy wasn't doing well. I know it's a left talking point that the economy wasn't in full blown recession until March of 01. However it's not as though Bush took office and things were ok and we had a crash of epic preportions that put the economy in Recession in a little more than a month. (Since if that actually happened do you think any reporter would not mention especially now?) There's a little thing called intertia and yes it occurs in economics as well. The economy had been going down hill for months before this. (The doc com bubble burst on March 2000 for example.) So by the time Bush got there that imaginary surplus was gone. (BTW, I've said this before but there was no real surplus either. Clinton's budgets were just less unbalanced than anybody elses'. Guess close is good enough if you're a dem.) The enconomy was in trouble when Bush got there and it would have been irresponsible for him to act as though things were ok when they weren't.

Zakaria:  In 2000, the Clinton administration had almost balanced the federal budget, and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting that over the next 10 years the United States would have surpluses that would add up to $5.6 trillion -- yes, trillion.

As we know, the Clinton economic numbers were based on the .com bubble that crashed as he left office, and permitting the kind of shenanigans in high finance that have now brought the economy to its knees.  Financial projection out to two years are risky enough; 10 year projections are useless.

Zakaria: By the spring of 2002, two thirds of that projected surplus had evaporated, and the rest disappeared soon thereafter.

Because the projections were nothing but smoke. 

Zakaria:  There were many reasons for this, out-of-control spending being one.

THAT'S BUSH'S BIGGEST FAILURE!  He wouldn't veto any Republican budgets as Hastert and Company spent like crazy, despite the post-9/11 urgencies.  Bush needed to veto those bills until the Reps cut out the waste, but he didn't.  The so-called conservative GOP demonstrated that they had absolutely no fiscal discipline, and consequently, they paid the price at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008.

...anyone think those tax cuts were a bad idea looking at the results.  I know how actually, I had never heard that the cuts were not only successful for businesses and individuals, but also for the government until I saw this link on newsbusters.  I suppose the media once again had difficulty reporting on a good idea from president Bush.

The dufus at Newsweek should actually look at the federal budget.  If he had, he would know that it is not tax cuts or their consequence  - balloning federal coffers - that always result, but outrageous run away spending that is causing the deficit to soar.  

A quick look at the major items in the budget reveal that 52% of the budget is conprised of entitlements that are on "auto pilot." That is to say, they are pegged to inflation and grow year in and year out by the amount that inflation for that year has grown.  And, at an alarming rate, the Congress keeps adding to that area in the budget by either creating new entitlements or expanding exisiting ones (President Bush must take the blame for a huge addition during his presidency - the prescription drug plan). 

Entitlements are the fastest growing area of the budget and by the time our new first stupid liberal, bambi, leaves office (mercifully in 2012) it will be over 60%!

I think it was pretty clear that the Bush tax cuts greatly increased revenue.  But, don't let the facts get in the way there, Comrade Zakaria.

Normally I would say this guy is just a journalist so what does he know, but these 'economists' anymore are just Socialists and ideology reigns over the nuts and bolts of what really does work and what doesn't...so why should we expect a different line from the MSM?

I still think McCain's gas holiday proposal last summer was a great idea.  It would have stimulated the economy greatly, especially in the trucking industry where they drive far more miles than average citizens, and would have translated into millions of dollars in savings for the economy.

But, nooooo...all we got was, "No way!  Our highways and bridges are just CRUMBLING!  The sky is falling!  Something must be done!"

Funny they weren't crumbling until Bush got elected.

At this point, however, I don't think 0% taxes would do any good.  Hate to be cynical, but I believe us to be screwed.

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.