The Bush tax cuts have had about a 10 year run.  They are set to expire, unless renewed.  It looks like, due to political partisanship, they will ALL expire, including tax cuts on the middle class, because the GOP doesn't want to extend them for the Middle class unless the the top X% also get them.

Well, in the years they have run, how has unemployment been?  Have they been effective at creating jobs in America?
January 2001, when Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Unemployment

It rose to 6.3% in 2003 and then declined to 4.4% in 2007, before rising to 7.6% at the end of the Bush administration.  Since that time, the unemployment rate rose further, to the current stagnant rate between 9% and 10% today.

So, I have to ask, how effective are the Bush tax cuts at creating jobs?  I don't see any sign of them working at all.  I know people will argue, "But unemployment will get worse if they are repealed or changed!" Well, if they haven't been working, why would it work any different?

Well, I understand the theory behind it- give tax cuts to the rich, and they'll have more disposable income to hire more workers. Problem is, in practice, this doesn't work. They bitch and moan about Obama spending $X to create Y jobs, when the numbers for what actually trickle down in tax cuts for the rich into (lower paying) jobs are about the same.

So no, they're not effective at creating jobs. And you've got it right- the conservatives are all about big business, and screwing over the middle class to give the rich more money. Rather than helping the working middle class, they're going to stick to giving the rich money or nothing. The rich are going to cut jobs because of the higher taxes on them! No, they're going to shed jobs because the middle class has less to spend on disposable items! And by also cutting the programs that help the lower classes pay for extra things, they're going to get a double-whammy, furthering the spread between the rich and the poor...

In short, they didn't create jobs. But we will lose jobs as people have less to spend in general- all to try to give more to the rich.

lol you do realise that the dems controled congress for the last 4 years and have done nothing. Maybe you should go look at the retards in power and not blame people that don't have any say in it.

Please inform me as I am ignorant to this topic, but what exactly did the Democrats do?

What exactly does this have to do with the effectiveness of the tax cuts from 2003?  Maybe you should stop listening to the retards at fox news.

so he can blame republicans  and nobody is allowed to say anything? lol at blaming fox news, your hippie school teacher must think you're so cool.

So if i get this straight...

You are looking at the tax cuts, and the unemployment in general... and saying they didn't work.

Ignoring the whole financial collapse, and the dot com bust for that matter.

It's that like saying someone was bit by a rattlesnake, took rattlesnake anti-venom, and then was shot.  Therefore rattlesnake anti-venon does't work?

Before the big financial crisis... unemployment was lower then when he became president.

At 4.6

Bush took office in 2001 not 2000... in the middle of a huge economic problem that Bush clearly didn't have time to create.

They had the last 4 years to make the tax cuts permanent for anybody they wanted, but they did nothing on the subject. Now that the cuts are expiring they are blaming the republicans, even tho they can pass any bill they want.

well isn't that the new science? If x is this, then it caused y.

Besides, aren't you talking about the  second set of bush taxcuts?

The ones that were inacted in 2003.  When unemployment was at 6.00%?

Becuase, after a slight raise more, unemployment plummeted until the financial crisis.

So...

they did work.

Unemployment only going back up when minimium wage increased.  Which is a natural effect of raising minimium wage followed by the economic crisis.