Republicans Only: What should our Party be?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think it is a clear cut choice between these two.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Anyway, I'm sure the tax cuts were the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to our grandchildren slaving away in a Chinese factory. 

Tax cuts.  War.  Bailouts.  Earmarks.  Pork.  Entitlements.  All things for our grandchildren to ponder while they are learning Mandarin.

Don tax cuts are not the same as Gov't spending. Tax cuts involve taking money out of Washington DC and putting it back into the hands of the people. Spending is just the opposite. We should have paid for the tax cuts by cutting spending but you can't force congressmen, who prefer to buy reelection with pork(Many of you your so called moderates are in this group like Lisa Murkowski), to cut spending.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don my pain target is big spenders, Tom Delay included. The trouble is that you are so afraid of conservatives that you are supporting some of the biggest Pork-Barrelers in congress and are contributing to you so called "China problem".

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in an increase in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

Under Coolidge and Kennedy it did, because neither President sent out rebate checks; they simply cut the margins and saved the money (though, of course, most of the money saved under Kennedy went straight into the jungles of Vietnam). There's a difference between keeping taxes low and engaging in supply-side economic activities. If I cut the taxes on my subjects but keep their last checks they paid me under the old rates, I have that much more money to store away. If I give it right back to them, I've gained nothing, and my coffers are that much lower. My ideal government is a penny-pincher.

I thought that's what supply-side economics is.  Lower marginal rates, lower corporate and capital gains taxes,  remove barriers to trade --> reward production, increase foreign investment, increase consumer spending --> more GDP --> more revenue.  What cog in the wheel am I missing?

Tax refunds. Everything you mentioned happened under both the Coolidge and the Reagan Presidencies, except Coolidge never issued any refunds when he dropped the marginal rates, and Reagan did. Coolidge was thereby able to save up the biggest budget surplus before the Clinton Presidency, while Reagan ran massive deficits late into his second term that led to the 1991-92 recession and cost G.H.W. Bush his second term.

Who the hell said anything about Tax rebates. I was talking about Tax cuts. I opposed the tax rebate even though I personally benefitted from. I am the biggest fan of Coolidge on this forum and I basically agree with what you said. The problem is that too often you have to add a populist element to conservativism to make it more palatible that usually screws up any chance of fiscal responsibility(ex. Kinder Gentler Conservativism, Compassionate Conservative)