By you saying that, you are in effect saying there are things FAR more important to the unemployment rate being where it is than tax cuts.  Like, if the financial markets meltdown and other things.

In regards to umeployment January 2001, it was 4.2% not 4.6%:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2001/feb/wk1/art01.htm

I mention all this, because the ONLY thing that EVER comes out of the GOP whenever there is economic issues is to cut regulation and cut taxes.  Tough to say how tax cuts are effective, in light of what is going on now.  If you cut taxes, and the money that would of been spent by people in welfare in America gets invested in China and elsewhere, it is hard to say tax cuts create jobs.

The rich want more profit despite the tax cuts. The "Trickle down theory" which the Bush Tax Cuts Emphasize on aren't realistic at all. In theory it sounds great great, but the corporate minority aren't backing down from outsourcing no matter what, taking the money and running without leaving anything in circulation for those ready and willing to work and spend in this country to keep the economy running. Taxes need to be raised across the board so government jobs can be created, medical can be covered and focused to more needed social programs ( Yes...I said social programs). There are plenty of places in the US that could use them. I don't see people in Japan, Germany or France complaining about the social programs we should've had which they attained by help from members of our own government. America is sabotaged from within.

So, you are saying the economy doesn't EVER create jobs unless they are tax cuts?  Or is that there we eventually have to get the tax rate down to 0% in order to continue to create jobs?

The reality is that the unemployment rate never dropped to the level that the Clinton administration left office with, once it rose above it.  If cutting taxes is the MAIN way to create jobs, why isn't that so?  Or maybe, just maybe other things are more important than tax cuts for job creation, as we are seeing now.

On this note, if tax rates were THE determining factor for employment, why don't business set up shop on open seas or out in the Antartic, or maybe Alaska, where there is really low tax rates?  How about they set up shop in an area where there is no government to charge taxes?  Again, could it be that other things matter more?  After all, why do people even bother to business in places like NYC, and Wall Street? 

Probably not effective at all. When they went into deficits to pay for the tax cuts they were paid for with bonds issued to the same people. It was a money transfer but little was done with it to promote employment.

Your allowed to say whatever you want, but it should be relevant to the topic.  Saying Democrats have been in power since 2006 means exactly what in reference to what happened in 2003?  Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency in 2003, yet they are somehow not to blame?  Even a hippie school teacher could figure that out.  Seems you need to go back to school.

Except there is no way to prove if the tax cuts had anything to do with unemployment decreasing until the crisis.  It could have been due to many other factors.

This is the kicker with the knee jerk reaction of "cut taxes" whenever there are economic issues about.  As was seen in this thread, the response to why unemployment rates are not dropping is said for other reasons besides tax cuts.  And this is valid.  And yes, tax cuts can THEORETICALLY cause unemployment to drop in a country, IF certain things happen. But there is no guarantee.  One also would have to ask if tax cuts are the best way to get a bang for the buck.  Or, are there greater needs afoot that maybe tax dollars should be used.  Like, say there is a state in total collapse, without a functioning legal system, or courts, and no way to uphold property rights.  Would this generate any economic activity?  Nope, not really much outside of barter.  So, if you start to collect taxes, you can cause the conditions to change, because you can afford to pay for police. 

Beyond this though, and this seems to get skipped in the debates about tax cuts or not, is that economies grow naturally, and people should become employed EVEN IF THE TAX RATE IS UNCHANGED.  This should be true, if a business can make profits hiring workers.  The workers are an expense.  In America, all expenses connected to workers, barring unemployment insurance and matching for social security, are covered and able to be written off their taxes.  What matters is the nation as a whole can have sufficient economic activity so that the business can justify hiring more workers.  Is it profitable to do so is what a business asks.

Implementing the Bush tax cuts cost the US Federal government trillions in lost revenue and the budget deficits grew and grew. The tax burden was passed from the highest income earners to the lower incomes earners. Lower income earners actually had to pay more than tax than they did before the Bush Tax cuts. Middle and highest income earners were better off, but the 80% lower income earners well they foot the tax bill.

Public services: education, transport and health funding were reduced to make. The Bush tax system was a flat tax system, regressive system that favours the higher income earners at the expense of the lower income earners. Bush Tax cuts played a pivotal role in the Increasing budget deficits and mounting public Increased government expenditure on Military, increased the deficits. 

However we can believe in the opposite of reality. Bush Tax cuts were good for all income earners and everyone was better off. Free market capitalist fairy tales are good. Who needs services, when you have more money in your back pocket? Tax cuts are always good and everyone surely benefits with paying less taxes?

The tax system needs to be fair and balanced: tax too much then the economy fails, tax not enough and the economy fails. A progressive tax system is much better than a regressive tax system. The tax rates need to be set at the optimal levels than encourages business activity and encourages economic growth. 

Trickle down economics does not work. The rich business owners will keep their tax cuts and put the savings in the bank or invest in property and shares. Very rarely do the rich business owners set up new businesses or employ more workers with their generous tax cuts. If they expand businesses it would be setting up shop offshore and exploiting cheap Asian labour markets and save on labour costs. 

Yes, there are more importan things... which are generally uncontroable and unfixable.

However tax custs do help.

Historically if you map out "tax cuts vs tax increases"  in general lower unemployment follows tax cuts, while higher unemployment follows tax raises.

You can't say for sure whether or not it makes a difference... but there is a whole lot more evidence supporting it does help rather then it not helping.

Note also, it's tax cut's and tax raises, not tax levels.

After about a decade people "adjust" to the new tax rate, no matter what it is.

The Bush tax cuts likely did increase jobs and now people are used to the tax rate, so while it's not creating further jobs, removing them will in fact kill off jobs.

It's why spending cuts are the best way to deal with a deficit in bad times and higher taxes are a better soulation during good times... though even then based on the short term loss of growth... it's a tradeoff to be sure.