The NYT is a forecast of future benefits. You said that most of the tax cuts "went to" the lower and middle income distributions. That is the past. And that is incorrect.
Top 1% received 15% of the tax cuts. Those making over $1 million received 24% of the tax cuts. Those in the middle 20% received 9% of the tax cuts.
Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
While one of the 'rich' would certainly receive more than one of the less than rich...
the Times article clearly points out that the bulk of the Bush tax cuts are not in the group of 'rich.'
The anlysis you use is produced by folks from the Kennedy School and the Woodrow Wilson School.
So...which source is more Left-wing...Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or NYTimes?
I do not criticize studies that come from the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation simply because of the source. Those are reputable organizations despite their ideological leanings, as is the CBPP. The analyses of the distribution of tax cut benefits comes from multiple sources. The NYT references forecasted future benefits. If you have another source that has analyzed the distribution of past benefits from the Bush tax cuts, please post it because I would like to see it. But projected costs do not approximate past benefits.
Sorry, Toro.
"I do not criticize studies that come from..."
My fault. Not written in the way I meant it.
No, I don't criticize the source, I hope, but the content when appropriate.
No, my point was that both our sources were left leaning, so it wasn't a right wing source that I was using to support my premise.
What I would hope is that you would give your explanation of the NYTimes clearly identifying the elimination of the Bush cuts as only providing 18.42% of the revenue is it were rolled back on the "millionaires" alone.
Seems prettty clear as to whom the bulk of the cuts went.
No?