So you agree that the left wing radio has been dishonest in its coverage of the tax cuts.
No, I don't agree with you. The Bush Tax cuts were for the Rich, and a few pennies for everyone else. I don't know what specifically the guy you've been listening to has been saying; I couldn't judge that he's being dishonest without knowing more about it.
What more, the Bush Tax cuts were regressive ones; that is to say, they were tilted strongly towards the rich. The vast majority of people saw their taxes reduced by 3%; but the rich and super-rich saw their taxes reduced by 5%, in the 2001 tax cut. Why a larger percentage of reduction for the rich? What is the reasoning behind this? It's simple to figure out - because Republicans think the Rich pay too much in taxes and they hate progressive tax codes. Can you explain why the rich got tax cuts which were more than 1.5 times as large as everyone else?
The 10k tax bracket is a joke, those people already got everything back anyway, so why even bother?
What more so - much more so - is that the 2003 Bush tax cut chopped the Cap gains tax by 1/3rd or more for top filers. This lead to a massive amount of profit for the rich and super rich. So, no - it's not a lie to call the Bush tax cuts 'tax cuts for the rich.' That's exactly what they were.
How can you have something take effect immediately but still take a decade?
Let us say that we end the tax cuts effective immediately. Then, over the next decade, we will have balanced our budgets thanks to the additional revenues that come in. These two statements are not contradictory.