Even if we assume that Keynesian economics is accurate and correct (it's not!), and that the economy is driven by demand rather than supply (it's not!), how does any of that negate or disprove tax cuts?
If giving people more money allows them to better stimulate the economy, then why not give them more more by letting them keep the money they would have spent in taxes? The poor and middle class will have more money to spend on goods and services, while the rich would have more money to invest in said goods and services.
I'm not someone who thinks that government is the solution to all problems. Government certainly has its problems. But so do markets. I tend to agree that all things being equal market solutions are generally preferable. But there are some things that markets just don't do well. the way I look at it is that both government and markets are tools that can be used to address issues in society. Each has their strengths and weaknesses.
One thing I would like to point out is that market competition doesn't create efficiency and customer service on its own. It provides the motive for companies to create the institutions that create efficiency and service. Things like performance reviews, customer feedback, and so on. Government can use those things as well. What you need to make government work well (well, at least one of the things) is a culture of professionalism and public service, of pride in serving the country. In my opinion, the way the right has been bashing government and civil servants for decades has seriously undermined that culture.
If you can't answer such an obvious question, how do you get off making comments about using people's logic to debunk their logic?
Considering two taxes are being used to deal with the screw ups caused by private businesses here i.e. the levy on insurance because one major co. buggered up, and the Property tax which was brought in since our govt. generously paid off the debts of those banks that really screwed up