If you think I'm saying tax cuts are somehow the same as cutting the size of government, you missed the point of my statement. Bush cut taxes but sadly and dangerously increased the size of government (his "compassionate conservatism" agenda). BTW, cutting the deficit does NOT promote but stifles economic growth IF taxes are raised to do it. The only way to balance the debt is REDUCE GOVERNMENT. The only way to stimulate the economy, as far as the government is concerned, is CUT TAXES.
Government economic programs that "feel good" or we might "think" works doesn't change the reality of historic fact. Sound economic theory and historical fact show that the best anti-poverty program is free-market capitalism. Examples include Reagan's tax and government cuts in the 80's, Chile's dramatic economic turn around in the 70's after they abandoned command economies for the free market, and of course America before the 1930's. Government economic programs consistently fail miserably and almost always include, as has been reported lately, "unintentional" detrimental effects. The best thing government can do regarding the economy is STAY OUT.
I think what Reagan once said is a good summation of things like Bush's failed "compassionate conservativism": "The scariest words in the English language are,'Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'"
I actually agree with your points. I was trying to set out how (in the ideal) compassionate conservatism could work. How it isn't an oxymoron. I did say that “feel good” programs should be eliminated & only ones that really work, without harmful side effects, should be retained. (That may mean eliminating a majority of existing government programs.) Also, economic growth is the best social program.