"tax cuts ... shouldn't be initiated without a decrease in gov't spending": Good point.

"tax cuts go to people who pay Federal taxes": I'm not sure why you wrote that.

Everybody here knows that employees are among the people who pay federal taxes, right?

"tax cuts" don't always affect all taxpayers equally. It depends on how the tax cut is designed.

There _could_ (theoretically) be some kind of "across the board" tax cut affecting all taxpayers equally but I'm pretty sure it hardly ever works that way in our current "income tax" system.

Why should we _only_ be interested in how the tax cuts affect _employers_ and _job creators_? That's the part of your post that's difficult to fathom.

What about how they affect all the people who _aren't_ employers or job creators?

Maybe the biggest group of people are "employees".

You say "paying all their employees more money". If true, that might address the needs of a lot of people. (A lot, but still not all; there would be some people who are not "employees", nor "employers", nor "job creators"; for example there could be a lot of layoffs in the steel industry or any other industries that might be affected by current trade war conditions. Maybe laid-off people aren't counted as "employees" anymore.) Did you also chat with employees, and with people who got laid off, and with any other kinds such as retirees? They might enlighten us with their perspectives and, perhaps, other information we haven't thought of. Are the employees forced to work overtime or two jobs to get the more money?

But there's more. If there's an effect _now_, is there some other effect _later_? I don't know yet (well, I _think_ I know; I think it will be like in the following example, but I don't know enough details to actually predict what will happen).

Here's a believable hypothetical example: Suppose the government were to borrow some huge amount of money, and use it to spread benefits (money, wages, salaries, tax cuts, etc.) to some, most, or all people _now_. In this hypothetical example, that all comes from borrowed money. Eventually, that will have an effect _later_: the effect might be "paying the interest" or "having a lowered credit rating" among nations, or some other "payback" kind of detrimental effect.

What we do _now_ might be affecting how the economy is 5 or 10 or more years in the future. If it's good now, sometimes that could be offset (in a cause-and-effect way) by it being bad later. I'm not saying it always works that way, I'm just saying that sometimes it might work that way.

If there is some detrimental effect that comes later, then when? During the Trump Administration? During one of the following Administrations? Should we even care? Yes. (Still in the hypothetical example: Anyone who _borrows_ should think ahead to how that affects the future, typically thinking about "paying back" the loan.) (Has there been such a scenario in our real history? I think it has happened more than once.)

People don't become "employees" until someone hires them.

If "employers" don't have the capital they need to create those jobs, the people in question do not become "employees," they remain "unemployed."

If employers can't afford to compensate their existing employees as much as they'd like to, they don't.

When the government lets employers keep more of their profits, they can afford to expand their business and pay their employees better, and that's generally what they do.

So what, basically, are you talking about?

People don't become "employees" until someone hires them.

If "employers" don't have the capital they need to create those jobs, the people in question do not become "employees," they remain "unemployed."

If employers can't afford to compensate their existing employees as much as they'd like to, they don't.

When the government lets employers keep more of their profits, they can afford to expand their business and pay their employees better, and that's generally what they do.

So what, basically, are you talking about?

I'm talking about employees, employers, and everybody; while you're talking mostly about employers.

People don't become employers until someone decides to work for them.

If consumers don't want a product, the company that produces it is worth a lot less than if they did want that product.

And so on. The system can be argued, validly, from each angle. But if you insist on seeing it only from "employers'" perspective then you're likely to miss some significant information from the other people's perspectives.

My "pernt" being that without the employers being in a position to create those jobs, the prospective employees wouldnt have the option of deciding whom to work for.

Another biproduct of those employers creating those jobs openings, currently to the point that so many options vs a (related) newly created shortage of applicants has caused those employers to become more competitive from an employee-beneficial perspective.

Without, I dare say, any artificial wage "stimulation" from the government.

The Trump Tax Cuts® have restored the successful, employer/employee friendly American tradition of allowing the marketplace to function exactly where it's supposed to, in the private sector, not in the halls of government.

H**e to say this but Trump is leading a race to the bottom that won't hurt his chances or improve them, so why go there, this topic is more of a feel good story compared to the real threat, Britain declaring war on Iran on behalf of willing Americans.

Trump maybe has boxed himself in and become the surrogate appendage of a leaderless Britain, Iran will hit back, I've never seen then so determined.

Every other nation sees this as white exceptionalism except the Five Eyes (FVEY) it stands for "For Virtually Every Yorkshire Pudding" has a plumb this one is Donald Trump that's on a naughty little boys thumb, maybe.

After jumping going down is easy to win until you get there.