Do the 2% really need another tax-cut?

There is a reason they are referred to as the 2%, they are the minority.  The richest 2% of our country are just that, 2% of the population, therefore the minority.  Why aren't more of the 98% more vocal in their frustrations over this minute, insignificant group getting all the breaks?

It may be the 2% that are financing these campaigns, but it is not the 2% standing in line at the polls that gets our elected officials in office.  The Republicans want to usher in new tax cuts for the rich, just as the old ones, enacted by the Bush Administration and put us into this recession, are coming to an end.

Our elected officials are supposed to do what is best for the greater population, if the Republicans are not doing that, then why do so many vote for them?  How do we have ANY Republicans in office?  How does that party even exist?  The rich finance the elections, and therefore have bought and paid for the officials.

We should not vote for someone that is paid for by big business or the richest 2%, we should not allow someone to hold office that represents such a small part of the population.

Bush tax cuts coming to an end...

Finally, one of his screw ups will go by the wayside, or will it?

Some of Bush's major tax cuts (to the rich) will expire soon, which is a good thing, but the sting we all felt in our economy will take some time to correct.

So many Republicans I know think that this laissez-faire type of government (Under both Bush and his father, and Reagan) is a good thing, yet they also enjoy the roads, schools and vast knowledge base that the U.S. holds, among other things, I guess they think all of that is free.

Reaganomics and "Trickle-Down Economics" don't work.  Giving tax cuts to the rich in hopes that funds will eventually reach the middle-class and the poor doesn't work, no matter what spin you put on the idea.   When the rich make more money, the rich save more money, look at our economy now.  Companies like AIG were circling the drain, yet their high level management were spending thousands and thousands of dollars on cruises and spa trips all the while taking million dollar bonuses, while the rest of us got stuck with the bill.

It is a proven fact, that as our country has changed over the last 250 years, that also the government has needed to change, and when that was allowed to happen, this nation flourished.  On the occasions where the laissez-faire rhetoric was loudest, and the government did not have the support of the people, we had The Great Depression, our most current recession, among several other market crashes.

One thing that all of the richest nations in the world have in common, is heavy involvement of their respective governments.  Trickle down economics do not work.  Placing more money in the hands of the rich, does nothing for the poor.

Some of the things our government has provided for us despite the laissez-faire rhetoric are as follows, Social Security, workers compensation, state colleges, minimum wage, public schools (free education), advances in medicine (longer life-span) and our military, just to name a few.  Are there any of these things you think we can do without?

Obama takes a lot of heat as he's accused of being a socialist for "redistributing the wealth".  What he is doing is not much different than his predecessors, except Bush took our (the middle class) wealth and spread it upwards, like we have extra money in our pockets to give to the rich.

The Presidents Speech was Boring?

Last night on the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly called Barack Obama boring.  He said he found nothing wrong with the words in the speech but felt that overall it was "boring".

We are talking about The President of the United States giving a speech about the closing war in Iraq.  It's not his job to be entertaining, we leave that up to O'Reilly and the folks at Fox News (Entertainment Channel).  While the President did exhibit a certain flair while on the campaign trail, that was not his primary focus last night.

Bill O'Reilly performs on his show as an entertainer and commentator.  Yet he fell so short of his job this time that instead of attacking our President on merit or substance, he had to attack his style, while his guest on the "Factor" Monica Crowley said he looked like he should be wearing a propeller hat.  I mean, really, you're a nationally broadcast show, with millions of viewers, and the best you can do is "boring" or "nerd"?

Why does Fox News pay O'Reilly?  More importantly, why does anyone bother to listen to him?