Does anyone here actually defend the republican tax cuts in recent decades?

Tax cuts for the rich are not sustainable. Especially when the debt is growing because of poverty.

I approve of tax cuts as long as they come with less spending.

Same spending, with tax cuts, makes no sense unless you print money.

Also, just to be clear, most of US debt is to itself, it isnt real debt.

its the debt to other countries which you have to worry about, not debt to central bank in USA.

Yes, the United States owes a significant amount of money to its central bank, the Federal Reserve

. The Federal Reserve is the largest single holder of U.S. national debt, owning approximately $4.5 trillion to $6 trillion in Treasury securities as of 2024–2025. This debt is part of the roughly 75% of national debt held domestically. 

Key Aspects of this Debt Relationship:

1. How it Works: The Federal Reserve buys U.S. Treasury bonds and notes on the open market, particularly during economic downturns (quantitative easing) to influence interest rates and the money supply.
2. Interest Returns to Treasury: While the U.S. Treasury pays interest on this debt to the Fed, the Federal Reserve is required to return most of its profits—including interest income—back to the U.S. Treasury, effectively making the transaction circular.
3. Independence: Although the Fed is part of the government's debt structure, it operates independently, and its holdings are considered part of the debt held by the public.
4. Other Holders: Besides the Fed, major holders of U.S. debt include foreign governments, private investors, and social security trust funds. 
5. 
   

While the Federal Reserve holds a large portion, this debt is generally seen as a tool for economic management rather than a traditional lender-borrower relationship

"As of early 2026, foreign countries and investors hold approximately $9.1 to $9.4 trillion in U.S. debt"

this is the debt you actually have to worry about, not the debt USA pays to itself.

Fauxlaw will certainly defend a Trump tax cut, and if you tell him that opposing the tax cut is "woke", he will be frothing at the mouth while defending the tax cut.

A few problems with your issues.

1. Since your subject is tax cuts - and so says the title - then begin there, not with spending. Congress controls spending by budgeting; their job, not the president; a job Congress has failed to do since fiscal 1996 for fiscal 1997. Congress is your nemesis, not the President.
2. Your title also suggests "recent decades," and I presume you mean Reagan, forward. Well, the fact is, from Reagan through the Biden presidency, Rs and Ds have split the 44 years, 20 years: D, 24 years: R. But presidents don't do legislation other than signing them, so it's Congress who controls both tax rates and spending, and the annual budget.
3. Over the last 44 years, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump have had the White House: Rs, five times, Ds 4 times, with the 5th R, Trump, 1 of 4 yrs in office, and what Congress will look like in the 120th Congress remains to be seen.
4. Over the last 44 years, Rs have had the House in 14 2-yr congresses, and 14 6-yr senates, while Ds have had the House 9 2-yr congresses, and 10 6-year Senates. So, in both House and Senate, Rs have a slight edge, but again, the 120th Congress is yet to be determined. If history holds, it will go to Ds.
5. But, relative to the above apparent advantage of R power in WH and Congress, you ignore that both Clinton and Obama signed tax cut legislation; Clinton in 97 [104th congress, with Ds holding the House] and Obama in 2010 [111th congress, with Ds holding House & Senate] and Obama again in 2012 [112th congress, with Ds holding the Senate], which virtually evens the score, not including the coming 120th congress. And you ignore that Kennedy in '63 signed significant tax cut legislation, passed by a D House and Senate. A little before Reagan, but just to demonstrate your hype against Trump, ignoring the Dems do tax cuts too, is exposed.

With this background, I declare your hand-wringing just more Democrat TDS and useless woke mumbo-jumbo. Your best opti0on: ignore Trump. He has little to do with your day-to-day. Mine, too.

LOL, see what I mean.

A tax cut is nothing, these Trumpers will defend anything, insurrection, fraud, rape, fascism, pedophilia, absolutely anything...and they will claim it's all Christian too.

As you predicted, but also apparently unaware that Dems do this, too. Three of them, at least, with agreeable Congresses.

Most of what you are arguing is a debate tactic and logical fallacy known as whataboutism. Instead of defending the tax cuts or admitting they are bad you deflect onto other issues. Do you or do you not support the republican predidents signing their tax cuts in the last 40 years? Why or why not?

You seem like someone who would criticize stimulous money so how would you justify borrowing money from our kids and grandkids for stimulus tax cuts?

Plus obama just extended the bush ran cuts and did a payroll cut during the great recession. Clinton's main focus was confirmed small business tax cuts. So the nature and scope of these were different than the republicans cuts and even if they were wrong it diesnt suddenly make tje republicans right to do what they did.

And. Congress joining in on the cuts doesnt justify the president from signing and promoting it.

The OP begs the question: Do you approve of tax increases beyond the Laffer curve if you don't approve of tax reductions beyond the Laffer curve?

Also, do you think USA is not beyond the Laffer curve and believe the political narrative that rich people are not leaving and are investing in new jobs and production to the fullest ability in the USA? Do you believe USA has a housing surplus?

If so, I would agree with the OP and say tax away.

Very interesting questions.

There's also another very pressing concern to consider when pursuing maximal tax revenues along the Laffer curve.

You’re all arguing about “maximizing tax revenue” like that’s some noble goal. It’s not. It just means squeezing as much money as possible out of people without the system collapsing. That’s it. The Laffer curve isn’t about fairness. It’s about how much you can take before people drastically change their behavior.

Now here’s the part people skip: even before you hit the point where revenue drops, you’re already shrinking opportunity. Higher taxes mean fewer risks taken. Fewer businesses started. Fewer expansions. That kid who might’ve started something? Maybe he doesn’t bother. That family that might’ve moved to build something new? Maybe they stay put. The damage doesn’t show up as a giant explosion. That construction crew that might have built a million new homes never gets them built. It shows up as things that never happen.

So the real tradeoff question isn’t “do we get more revenue?” It’s “how much freedom, prosperity, and opportunity are we willing to trade for it?” You can absolutely maximize revenue. But don’t pretend that’s free. Every step toward that peak means more control for the state and less room for individuals. The argument isn’t about math. It’s about what kind of society you actually want. And we haven't even tapped into the metric of government fraud and waste with tax revenues. The larger and more real concern is whether or not your taxes are used efficiently, forget fraud and waste. That's a far easier question to answer with ample evidence.

You just described what is wrong with the American system of government. Should they be following the Chinese model?

a debate tactic and logical fallacy known as whataboutism

Yes, I know whataboutism. Do you deny that Democrats Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama [twice] signed tax cuts? I do not care whether they were personal or business taxes. Cuts are cuts, my friend. I think you're confusing your own whataboutism, thinking it's mine. I expect tax cuts and support them when warranted, and they're always warranted when government decides its budget is candy store cash. It's still our earned money and I do not believe in support of taxes when they go to studying why whores live their lifestyle, to analyze the life cycle of dingbats, and support giving billions to idiots in MN [or anywhere else] who grift like it was a dying art form, let alone supporting lazy people who have the ability to work, or people in Congress on a particular side of the chamber, sitting on their hands even when told of an 11-year-old girl rescued from the Texas flood, and the Coast Guard man who saved her. While I encourage legal immigration, I do not support giving aid to illegal aliens just because they're here. They broke the law crossing the border. They've had their day in court for due process, even if they choose not to attend. The law deserves to be enforced. Got a problem with that? Then stop protesting in thestgreetsd and write your reps to cha age it. Do you even know your reps? I know both my Senators, and my Rep, personally, and have spoken several times in person. Yeah, I'm involved. You?

Stimulus money? I seem to have been passed by. A couple of years ago, my wife received a letter from the IRS telling her we would not receive stimulus because their records show I am dead. News to me because they seem to accept my annual tax returns, and have received this year's with open arms. No, I do not appreciate paying the salaries of such head-up-their-arse idiots who don't know where their shyte comes from.

You might have submitted your burial expense claims or your wife did and they had it on record. Busted.

What burial expense claim? What they have on record is a roomful of clowns at IRS who don't know living or dead. Typical givernment clerks. Woke.

Then why did they refuse your funeral expenses which your wife filed and got busted.

No funeral expense to attempt to deduct, since I am not dead. But funeral expenses are not tax deductible in the first place. However, as they are generally paid out of the deceased's estate, they deduct from the net estate and are therefore deducted from taxable income for the beneficiary[ies].

So you admit there were tax benefits for your claims.

Damn! I'm dealing with mental midgetry, here. For the umpteenth time: I AM NOT DEAD. THERE ARE NO DEATH BENEFITS CLAIMED.

IT WAS THE #@%%@#@# IRS WHO ERRED IN DECLARING ME DEAD. GET IT? YET? JUST STOP.

YES, I AM PISSED.

Did you send a piss sample to prove your status?

I tire of your nonsense. You're banned for March.

Sorry to hear you had to piss.

Democrats opposed DOGE because it was cutting things like trans drag shows in Peru

We opposed DOGE because we didn’t like the idea of a bunch of drugged out teenagers like “Big Balls” walking into government agencies and firing people en masse without even knowing what it is that they do, like guarding our nuclear weapons for example.

Trump has a plan to cut military spending by 15% over the next 5 years.

It is hilarious anytime someone claims Trump has a plan on anything. The man is every bit as out of it as you guys claimed Joe Biden was, is a pathological liar, has shown us no such plan, and has raised military spending at every turn. But tell me more about these plans.

It's actually odd also that you are trying to group the 90s Democrats like me and Trump who took over the party with the Republicans we opposed in the 90s without changing any of our policy positions.

Trump’s position on abortion certainly changed. But he’s always been a fascist, so there’s that.

So, what you are saying is, Fauxlaw was dead, and then he wasn't, so...he woke?

Fauxlaw according to him was dead when his wife filed his funeral expense claims and returned to cash in the refund.

Fauxlaw according to him was dead when his wife filed his funeral expense claims and returned to cash in the refund.

Are you saying that instead of Fauxlaw, maybe it should be Fraudlaw?.