Yes, people having money to spend did contribute to growth in the housing market.
Right, but we learned that the growth in the housing market was all in subprime loans with "dramatically weakened" standards. So I'm confused what position you're staking here, that tax cuts were responsible for the housing market or weren't? BTW - household debt
skyrocketed right after the Bush tax cuts. So "letting people keep more of what they earned" is really bullshit, isn't it? If it's not, how come household debt skyrocketed as soon as the tax cuts were passed?
That, in and of itself was a good thing. The bad thing was the approving of home loans to people that really could not afford the payments on the loans.
Yeah, that's not true either. Low-income loans are not what caused the crisis. Only one of the top 25 lenders during the subprime bubble were subject to CRA rules. So what were these subprime loans for? Not for poor people, that's for sure. Loans for poor people would have to have been subject to CRA rules. But the overwhelming majority of loans issued from 2004-7 were not subject to CRA rules, and weren't even underwritten by GSE's.
Take a look at this chart and tell me what you see from 2004-7:
Or this one:
So when I see that chart, I see a major shift in lending from 2003-7, do you?
The tax cuts were not the cause of the bubble. Growth does not necessary equal bubble. However, if you want to keep believing the tax cuts caused that problem, so be it.
So you contradict yourself in your own post. You say tax cuts were not responsible for the bubble here. But you said in the first sentence they were. So you see how you're circle jerking around?