That tax cuts didn't come out of thin air, we received increased deficits due to them.
Only if there is no increase in economic activity (ie: taxable activity) along the way. While it's technically "fair" to do an 'everything else staying the same' calculation of deficits, and this is how we do this, this method always results in downplaying the positive tax effects of economic growth, while also downplaying the negative effects of economic loss over time. So tax increases seem to be more deficit friendly because we assume the same economic activity after the tax increases as before. But economic activity decreases as a result, meaning we get less deficit reduction than the straight math would predict. Similarly, tax cuts appear on paper to have direct corresponding increases in deficits, but we find that over time, they don't, specifically because people tend to take those extra dollars they have as a result of the lower tax rates and either spend them (which results in increased profits and thus taxable revenue by vendors), or invest them (which increases taxes by the businesses or whatnot that grow as a result).
This is not a "take money from peter to pay paul" kind of scenario. If the tax base itself expands (and every indicator shows that it is already), the effect on total deficit will be minimal if there is any at all.
Yes, the box of donuts got 25% cheaper, but they cut the package down from 12 to 8. The GOP bought us a gift with our own credit charge and expects us to pay the accruing interest.
Again, that's not really the way this works. If the entire system is zero sum? Sure. But it's not. We're already seeing gdp growth rates that are somewhere between double and triple what we saw during Obama's administration. Whether that rate is maintained or not is a matter of speculation, but the fact is that GDP growth means large tax base, which means you can generate similar amounts of revenue for the government even with lower tax rates across the board.
As much as conservatives like to lambaste "Well, why not make minimum wage $1 MILLION!, then everyone will be rich," that is also a problem here. Without considering utility changes, the distribution of tax cuts matters. If my income inflates while everyone else's inflates more, then I have lost purchasing power.
Again, that's not how it works. Purchasing power is your earnings relative to the cost of goods you purchase. If the only growth was inflation related, you'd have a point. But if the growth is due to more people actually working (which appears to be the case), and more businesses opening up shop in the US (which appears to be the case), and more businesses headquartering out of the US rather than a foreign country (which also appears to be the case), then the effect on cost of goods does not change in direct relation to that growth. Which means you get the increased tax base, while at a decreased tax rate, and everyone benefits
It's quite possible to have a scenario where someone else benefits more than you do, but you're still better off than you were before. It's not always true that someone has to lose for someone else to gain. You're assuming that purchasing power will decrease in direct relation to the increase in take home pay, but there's no data to support that claim.