That is not true. The Trib had a big article on a Road the US was building that had some numbers in it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-030...1,2411710.story
This is the article that includes the quotes of the effects of the $87 billion on the deficit.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-030...1,6409414.story
As for Bush's "economic" policy, yes it sucks. But for completely different reasons than you are talking about. Trickle down economices doesn't work in a recesionary or recoving economy. Spending and capacity utilization have to be at near ideal levels for this type of tax cut to work. And the sad thing is, I have always been on the conservative side of things when it comes to econ, but this is just garbage.
The official draft of the budget from Bush had $0 for Afghanistan. It was later changed after Rummy made that idiot comment, I should have clarified that. [i'm on a vicodin right now for wisdom teeth stuff so I'm not 100%]
I am right along with you that trickle down sucks ass.
And let's not forget all those "patriotic" corporations that move their base of operations address to the Cayman Islands to avoid US taxes. Even NUKE_CLEVELAND said: I can't stand that s***, you're right about that.
IF the government really wanted to make a statement to those corporations they would lean on the SEC to pass a bylaw that for a stock to trade on a US exchange it has to be based in the US. With the threat of capital trying up, they would come back to the states real quick. But there is no politician with the guts to make a move like that.
But the problem is that the US worker has priced himself out of the world market. We want cheap goods, high paying jobs, and high stock prices, which is economically impossible, while keeping all 3 in the US. We make our choices of what to buy, and if we as a country are going to buy cheap foriegn goods, companies will seek out cheaper labor to be able to compete with these companies on price point.