Barney Frank in his factually and wildly incorrect comments about the Bush tax cuts and results, stated that we should tax the rich so we "can recover" some of what they received. He apparently does not know that government is a 100% parasite that has no money of its own nor does he apparently know that a tax cut reduces a future payment, it never gives anything except the money of "taxpayers" who have earned it, to those who have not. In the case of those in the highest bracket, when the 2003 cuts took place, the lowest amount of income taxes paid upon reaching that bracket "final net tax" was $96,000. After the cut, it was $84,000 a percentage cut of under 12%. Even though the government still had a whopping $84,000 of that taxpayers' money, Frank and many libs think the taxpayer took $12,000 from the government rather than paid $84,000 to it. The highest percentage cuts went to the lowest bracket (15% to 10%). That is a 33 1/3% cut. Is the dollar amount much less? Of course! To be in the lowest bracket you could only have paid a tiny fraction of the highest bracket amount as your "final net tax". Without Marxist redistribution of others' earnings, it is absolutely the fairest thing that can be done. Two other critical factors. With higher tax rates, before the tax cuts, the top 1% paid 35% of the total burden of income taxes (IRS data--tax returns). With the lower rates, the top 1% are paying 39.37% In Clinton's last submitted budget, government revenues took a steep drop, then continued downward for 2 more years. After the 2003 Bush cuts revenues soared (Congressional Budget Office, IRS, Census Bureau, every other reliable source) There may be some liberals in the world who tell the truth about taxes and economics-I just don't know of any. The economy was doing great before Democrats gave us the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.