If you look for people telling what their motives are, the response to the growth rates during Bush, Jr.'s first term are puzzling. He proposed a tax break (mostly) for the rich on the excuse that this would produce remarkably higher growth (and no deficit). Instead the growth in real GDP from 2000 to 2004 was about 60% of the growth during the previous four years.
What was the response?
Outrage?
Disappointment?
Puzzlement?
No. There was essentially no response. My hypothesis as to why after the break.
Those of us who didn't like reducing progressivity in the income tax in the first place weren't surprised. The talking heads who had supported it don't seem to have been surprised, either.
I'd suggest that they knew all along that the claim of higher growth was an excuse. The rich and executives of large corporations have accepted low growth because their share of the economy has grown.
After taxes, the income of the rich has grown because of the Bush tax cuts (and the preceding Reagan tax cuts). The real GDP would be 44% higher if the average growth during Democratic administrations had been maintained during Republican administrations, but the rich are willing to trade this higher potential economy -- with a higher return for them as well as the rest of us -- for the advantage of having to pay less than their share.