You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me help you out here.
When gov't "cuts taxes" it is simply taking in less money. Assuming they do not cut spending (a good assumption with our present gov't) that means the money to pay for the cuts must come from somewhere else. So the "middle class" enjoys a tax cut only at someone else's expense. It is a zero sum. No new spending is created.
But if you cut taxes at the margin for businesses (and workers) then they have extra incentive to produce more as they get to keep more of whatever extra money they earn. You are wrong that they will simply keep it as "profits." Companies do not keep profits. They invest the money i their own operations, they pay down their debt, they raise salaries to attract better workers, they cut the price of their product or otherwise make it more attractive, or they hand out dividends to their shareholders.. Thereby they sell more product. This is what creates jobs. Not handing out cash to people to spend. That's been a proven waste of money both under Carter and under Bush.
History doesn't support your opinion here. From JFK to the present, fiscal conservatives have known that cutting certain taxes across the board in intelligent ways is the very best way to stimulate a lagging economy. JFK was adament that you do not raises taxes in a recession. And if you use a good data source--not a propaganda blog--and look past such tax cuts in the past, each time you see a burst of financial energy that results in INCREASES in federal treasury revenues. Why? Because tax cuts change behavior both of business and consumers, generate more economic activity, and this results in more revenues for the treasury.
There would surely be a point of no return, of course, and the government must have some money to perform its Constitutionally mandated functions. But the government could be a whole lot smaller in size and scope than what it is which would of course dramatically reduce the amount of money it would need to take in.
It's all in whether you trust politicians and bureaucrats to spend your money on your behalf more wisely than you would spend it yourself.
Thank you for proving what I wrote. You are the one with a reading deficit.
Okay I didn't give you credit for what you got right, and I apologize. I was focused on your opinion that giving the tax cuts to the middle class, when government spending is not also cut, requires taking the money from somewhere else. I disagreed with that and still do. I think a smart middle class tax cut can generate sufficient economic activity to generate tax revenues that will offset any cost involved in the tax cut and it doesn't have to cost anybody a dime.