[island911]

Sorry for the delay, John. . .was caught up in those links. From which:
"When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party."

you see it's arguments like this that play well with the average worker. (read: sucker) Mostly because the the average worker doesn't understand that "the rich" when faced with a government wanting to take a huge chunk under the guisse of "fair-share," they (the rich) have the resorses to move their money to other counties, and other investment opportunities.

Widebody (Tom) is concerned with all the work going off-shore. Just who is investing offshore ?. . ..and is it because investing in the US means the leaches will drain you dry?

[edit:] Example: Our local government and unions in the NW kept putting the screws to Boeing. Guess what, they're picking up and leaving. Boeing is leaving behind some awsome infrastructure just because too many were taking too much.[/edit]

Letting people keep more of their money will help the US economy.
How much it will help will really depend on a lot of things.