Homes can't be afforded for so they have to be taken by the government and sold to other people for lower prices than they are meant to be. This takes a large part in why the housing industry is so bad right now-- only to sell, not to buy.

Jobs are the main part of any country. Without jobs there will be not economy and not taxes. That means that milita would not be payable and your lives could be in danger at the exact moment that you are reading this. Even before there was money (notes), people had jobs and traded with items such as fur and clothes. Without any support of the people, with contributing to support of the government then there would be chaos throughout the country.

The point is that when enough people lose their jobs then the end of America will be coming sooner than we thought, hoped, and dreamed.

Any questions? Just comment.

Thus, this stimulus plan - any stimulus plan - must be evaluated based on whether it will deliver benefits greater than its costs, and whether the plan will indeed create any net new jobs. Beginning with infrastructure spending, the government is saying that spending on roads and bridges rather than a myriad of other priorities (including tax cuts) is the best use of those government funds. Will several thousand new miles of highway or a few hundred repaired bridges be worth the billions of dollars that would be spent building or repairing them? The value of public infrastructure projects are very difficult to measure, and the economic stimulus effects of infrastructure spending is uncertain. In fact, most targeted spending in stimulus bills is criticized because the benefits are concentrated into one industry.

Assuming that the value of the infrastructure would exceed the cost, what about job creation? The billions of dollars used to pay construction crews for the building looks like it is creating construction jobs, and those construction workers will then spend their wages buying cars and houses, and then the car manufacturers and home builders will hire workers to address this new demand. However, the money for the infrastructure building must come from someone, and that means taxpayers either now or in the future must pay for those projects, and will therefore have to reduce their spending in other areas to pay for these infrastructure projects, including the interest on the debt for those projects. Thus, someone who might otherwise pay for a child's education, purchase health insurance, or vacation in Hawaii instead will pay additional taxes to pay for the roads and bridges. Therefore, there will be unseen job losses from these targeted spending initiatives, but politicians are not forthright about these costs.

Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any net new jobs will be created by the government spending, and there is likelihood on a net basis jobs will be lost. The reason for this is that construction jobs are kept at an artificially high level by the Davis-Bacon Act, which does not allow for the payment of competitive wage rates; rather, it mandates paying “prevailing wages” that are usually union-based rates on construction contracts. Thus, a lot of the stimulus spending on infrastructure will be awarded to the favored class of workers drawing abnormally high, non-market wages. If we take money from citizens who would otherwise purchase goods in competitive industries where wages are usually lower (and therefore employers can afford to hire more workers per customer dollar), it is very likely that directing stimulus dollars to protected industries will cause a net loss in employment.

It is also worth noting, that if money is spent for environmentally friendly technologies such as wind and solar, infrastructure spending is usually environmentally disastrous. Forest and trees are cleared for road-building, and then with roads comes the attendant development of nearby property. The environmental degradation from infrastructure spending is fairly well documented. The worst environmental disasters of all time in the U.S. were large infrastructure projects, many of which took place during the New Deal. Many dams in the western United States were built during the New Deal to create jobs, and destroyed many river ecosystems, including the Colorado River basis and the upper and lower Tuolumne River in California.

What about the proposal to spend government stimulus money on solar energy and wind farms. First of all, it must be recognized that if solar and wind power were indeed economically feasible, then the profit motive would draw in entrepreneurs to invest in these industries, and indeed there is some private investment in these industries, where sun or wind are plentiful. However, even these projects have gotten benefits of tax credits and accelerated depreciation benefits. Obama justifies spending in these areas to create jobs and to build energy independence. It is unlikely net new jobs will actually be created: there will be unseen job losses not just from citizens spending less because of higher taxes, but also because solar and wind energy compete with other energy forms of energy. Thus, kilowatts generated by a solar power plant, may cause workers at coal companies to lose their jobs and go on unemployment benefits. With regard to energy independence, that is a foolish goal if the U.S. can trade with other countries to bring in less expensive energy sources, and currently the U.S. can do that. If a consumer pays say $1.00 per kilowatt hour of electricity, should that consumer pay $2.00 for the same quantum of energy merely because it came from a U.S. wind farm rather than oil pumped in Saudi Arabia?

In light of these criticisms, what would be a good stimulus package? The best stimulus package would be to reduce tax rates across the board by the largest possible percentage without currently damaging the government's ability to pay its debt. Returning to the Reagan tax rates of a 28% rate and a 15% rate would be the fairest, most productive stimulus package. Lowering the taxes on productive business activities encourages all forms of economically viable businesses to come into existence, and workers are hired into businesses that are growing because they are selling something that consumers want. Government spending means the government is buying something no one currently wants: government spending usually distorts the proper allocation of resources. Private sector economic development promotes the efficient allocation of societal resources to those goods and services citizens want. Thus, lowering tax rates as the stimulus package is simple, fair, and economically efficient. Doing so can also be counted upon to stimulate new businesses that no government expert foresaw. Therefore, the U.S. can avoid having the government try to “pick winners” with its lavish spending. Better the spending be for industries and new ventures that are determined by the market rather than government experts.

The U.S. auto industry is not just GM, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler any longer, although the only manufacturers that have gone begging a bailout from the government are these three manufacturers. Since the late 1970's, the U.S. auto industry has included many companies, only two of which are considered domestic companies because they are incorporated in Delaware and have their headquarters in Detroit. Chrysler is a mixed German-US company. The U.S. auto industry includes Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Subaru, and BMW, and all employ auto workers in the US, have facilities in the U.S., and pay taxes in the U.S. All of the auto companies including the two remaining domestic companies, GM and Ford, have overseas operations. Furthermore, even if a car is made in the United States, it may have a majority of its content composed of parts made outside the United States.

What is ailing the U.S. auto industry is the worldwide recession and high interest rates; together those forces are causing a global decline in demand for vehicles. That will in the future change and demand will at some point increase as millions of people enter the middle class in China, India, and other parts of the world. However, currently the revenues and profits of the auto manufacturers are suffering. This occurred in every past recession as well; the greater problem in this recession is that it is a worldwide phenomenon, not just limited to the U.S, and thus the results of overseas operations are not balancing weakness in the U.S. market.

GM and Ford are using up their cash keeping their facilities operating at a low level during the recession and continuing to pay out large sums of cash for retiree health and retirement benefits. Without a turnaround in sales soon, GM may run out of cash in the middle of 2009. However, the solution is not for the federal government to give money to the auto companies (although that is the solution the auto companies and the unions prefer); the solution is for the unions to offer some radical solutions to high cost labor so that the companies can survive. The most radical solution, but one that has substantial merit, is for the union to offer to disband to save the jobs of its members. Those are grand sacrifices, but they should be made before money from other citizens is simply given to these two or three automakers so they can avoid making the difficult business decisions that need to be made.

There are other U.S. auto manufacturers and they are not seeking federal assistance. Propping up weak manufacturers will allow them to continue to operate in a marketplace that simply is not large enough to support all of the manufacturers. Accordingly, by spending federal money to prop up weak players in the market, the government will actually be hurting the stronger manufacturers that could survive on their own in the market if the federal government does not intervene. The government should stay out of the market, and let the auto companies work out their own problems. Government intervention will create a larger problem of weakening other manufacturers who will then march to Washington for their bailout too.

First, the issue that made this election interesting was the topic of taxes. All Americans were are interested in how much they're are gonna pay and how their taxes will be used. The Democratic party, directed by Obama, claim that taxes should be set at a level that permits the government to help beneficial programs, This party says that taxes should be higher for large businesses and people with high-income. While the Republican party, led by McCain, argues that taxes are already high enough on large businesses and high-income people, whose investments help create new jobs. These are the opinions of only two men, so what does America want or need? Anyone with a brain can figure out who people from a certain economic status group will vote for. In other words the poor will vote for Obama and the rich for McCain. So if the votes are somewhat 'bought' wouldn't the election be rigged? Well that's for Americans to decide wether or not they care more about their money or their laziness. Because people have the mentality that why should they share their wealth with people who don't try or are to lazy to do something with their lives most wealthy people favor McCain. On the other hand some poor people that want to someday become rich will also favor the Republican leader.

Second, the most talked about topic for the last couple of years; the environment. The government parties have strong opposite views on this subject. McCain feels that reducing or abolishing some environmental regulation, which have become too restrictive. Also he favors the proposal for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a protected wilderness, due o the costs of importing foreign oil. Senator Obama's point of view is that environmental laws are not strong enough. He opposes the A.N.W.R drilling proposal, preferring more fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce energy dependence. The grand issue in this particular subject is that a protected wilderness is at stake, many animals will lose their home and safety, on the other hand America will lose dependence on foreign countries for oil which will help the economy.

Third, I don't want to seem like I favor a party so don't take what I'm about to say personal. This particular issue has been won by the Democratic party by far, if you have seen some or all the political debates then you'll agree with me. Senator Obama has been superior over McCain in this issue. Even though Senator McCain tried to make Obama's plan sound ridiculous and unplanned, the young Senator knew how to defend himself properly from McCain's accusations.

Fourth, maybe the most sensitive issue in this debate was the school prayer. The Republican party believes that organized prayer should be permitted in public schools saying that since church and state are separate then there's nothing stopping school prayer. The Democratic party argues that even nondenominational prayer will pressure other students to pray, which is a violation to the Constitution.

Lastly, the so called missile defense project. The missile defense project has both parties interest while one party agrees with funding this project, the opposite party thinks its a waste of money since the system isn't functional at the time. The Republicans feel that investing in this project is vital ( though this funds will cost billions of dollars, how much is the safety of a country worth to its people). The Democratic party strongly opposes this 'waste' of money since it effectivity is uncertain at the moment. Obama feels this is a waste of resources and the country can't afford a loss like that at the moment. In my opinion people who can vote SHOULD!! Also people who are gonna vote please choose the best candidate.... not for you but for all Americans. People who are rich don't just vote for McCain to avoid Obama's tax because what if your economic status was to change from rich to poor, who would help you then. On the other hand poor people don't just vote for Obama to gain financial help because what if your kids become rich they will have to pay the high taxes. Voters please think towards the future not the present because life is so unpredictable. Well will see what America really wants in November.

The funny thing is, however, without taxes, we wouldn't have a country. Our taxes pay for so much more than welfare checks and "overhead projectors". Nobody thinks that the government should tax us more than is necessary, but at the same time nobody should think that our taxes don't do anything but go to $600 toilet seats and airplane rides for Sarah Palin's family.

In essence, despite the fact that U.S. taxes are low compared to other economically developed countries (source: here), over 2/3 of corporations in the U.S. pay ZERO corporate income taxes (source: here), and trickle-down economics have been proven time and time again to not actually work for anyone except the wealthy in America, John McCain wants to pursue his policies of economic confusion and deception, at the expense of our individual and collective well-being. On November 4th, show John McCain an exercise in real economics: tell him if he can't supply us what we need to grow and prosper like we know we can, then there will be no demand for his services as president. Vote Obama!

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should..."
- John McCain, December, 2007

Since “Joe the Plumber”’s emergence, many facts have come to light concerning Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who plays the role of Joe the Plumber, which reveal the entire premise of his question to Obama and all of its elements and facets to be a lie.

According to many respectable news sources (among them

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/politics/17joe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin,

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html,

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4961157.ece),

“Joe the Plumber”’s real name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher and he says he has been a plumber for 15 years. We now know that he is not a plumber, he just works for one. He is not licensed as a plumber, he has never served a plumbing apprenticeship and he does not belong to the plumber’s union. If he does plumbing work, as he says, he is working illegally. Moreover, the man who plays the part of “Joe the Plumber” owes back taxes in the amount of nearly $1,200 and therefore has a lien against his property. 

According to these same news sources, Mr. Wurzelbacher admits that he earns significantly less than $250,000 a year and, even if he purchased the business he says he wants to purchase, he admits that he actually would make much less than $250,000 and that he would, in fact, get a tax cut under Barack Obama’s plan. Despite this, this man, Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, complained to Barack Obama about his tax plan because Obama would raise his taxes. Thus, the man himself debunked the entire premise of his complaint and in this way also revealed that “Joe the Plumber” does not exist.  

These are facts. What is worrying is that I was able to turn on the Fox News channel last night and see Samuel J. Wurzelbacher as a guest still introducing himself and being introduced and glorified as “Joe the Plumber” and nobody, not the audience, not the interviewers, naturally not Mr. Wurzelbacher, nobody present on the show addressed or even alluded to any discrepancy between the fictitious character “Joe the Plumber” and their guest, Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. As I watched, I felt as if I was viewing parents holding a discussion with a santa claus for the entertainment and pacification of their children.

The question is, why is the McCain campaign (evidently with the support of Fox News) sticking its proverbial head in the sand in denial and making an icon out of a voter who is so gripped with a penetrating irrational fear of paying taxes he isn’t even liable to pay, that he has fabricated an entire persona and an entire scenario that doesn’t even exist? Why is the Republican campaign idealizing a voter who has proven his dishonesty and lack of integrity by fabricating these lies, by not working legally in his trade and by not paying the taxes that he is responsible to pay under the Bush administration?

According to McCain, "[Obama] claims that this honest, hard-working small businessman could not possibly have enough income to face a tax increase under the Obama plan." By this flagrant denial of the facts, are McCain and his supporters insisting that the average American is a dishonest, tax-evading, unprofessional, fear-laden citizen just like the "honest, hard-working" Mr. Wurzelbacher? And is Mr. Wurzelbacher their idea of the model American citizen that they want to promote and reward? What about the hard-working American who plays by the rules? What about the hard-working Americans who do pay their taxes? What about the hard-working Americans who pay their bills on time? What about the hard-working Americans who do live with integrity? 

As Winston Churchill once said “...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.” While most of us already know that Santa Claus and Joe the Plumber aren’t real, McCain’s campaign and Fox News wrongly continue to do their public and the integrity of the American people a disservice by perpetuating a grand myth around Mr. Wurzelbacher and by denying a truth that their public is already apt to deny. 

This article explores the choice for President from the perspective of an average, middle class American who is concerned about saving money on his taxes in these hard economic times. I did my research and read all the information I could find on the two candidates, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, concerning their tax proposals. My first point of reference was the candidate's own websites. After all, the best information should come from the horses mouth shouldn't it?

Senator Obama's Plan

First I looked at Senator Obama's tax proposals as listed on here. Boiling it down, the low income voters will get the biggest tax breaks. The middle class taxpayer has either a tax cut or the same taxes as they currently pay up to $250,000 dollars of income per family. Above the $250,000 level your taxes most likely would increase. The increases in taxes would affect approximately the top 5% of American income earners.

Senator McCain's Plan

I then looked at Senator McCain's tax proposals as listed here. The only thing I could find on his site was that he would keep the top tax rate at it's current level and not raise the tax rate on capital gains. These items would certainly benefit the upper class voter but not benefit nearly as much the lower or middle class voter. Strangely enough Senator Obama's site did give Senator McCain credit for a dependent tax credit that would save voters with children $125, but I couldn't find that information on Senator McCain's own site.

So according to the candidate's own websites Senator Obama is the practical choice to vote for if you are a lower or middle income taxpayer.

Independent Tax Experts

Considering the complexities of taxes I felt that perhaps it would be a good idea to check with some experts. I went looking for a non-partisan organization that reviewed the candidates tax proposals and found the Tax Policy Center. When you look at the information provided by the Tax Policy Center website things get even more interesting.

The Center has a 45 page document that compares the candidate's tax proposals against the currant tax policies. It goes into a lot of analysis that is sure to make accountants and economists happy, but can be very confusing to the average person. The summary section is the easiest to understand for the average tax payer. There are two charts in the summary section that show the increase or decrease after tax income for each income level. The income levels are broken up into five 20% brackets. The charts are on pages 41 and 42.

How do the candidates compare with each other according to the Tax Policy Center? If you are in the bottom 80% of income earners you will have more net income, after the tax man has had his share, with either candidate, but you will do a lot better if you have Senator Obama in office rather than Senator McCain. If you are in the top 20% of income earners your net income is likely to be less under Senator Obama's plan and more under Senator McCain's. The tricky part comes in as to where the actual dividing line really lies. It is somewhere in that top 20% bracket.

A Clearer Picture

To get a clearer picture of where the dividing line really was I did some more research and found that the Washington Post on-line  newspaper has a really good chart that displays exactly where the dividing line falls. The Washington Post created the chart from the information from the Tax Policy Center.

According to the Washington Post if your family makes between $227,000 and $603,000 you will have a zero tax increase under Senator Obama's plan. Above the $603,000 dollar level you will have increased taxes, this level equates to the top one percent of Americans. At the bottom of the income spectrum where 60% of Americans live, they would receive an average of 3.8% in tax breaks or about $833 each.

The Washington Post's chart shows for Senator McCain's plan families making over $2.8 million would receive the largest tax break of 4.4%. For 60% of Americans in the lowest income brackets Senator McCain would give an average of .46% in tax breaks which averages out to $150 each.

Conclusion

It is clear that for approximately 95% of Americans Senator Obama is the winner when it comes to taxes especially if you're in the lowest income levels. However the top 1% to 5% of Americans would probably do better to vote for Senator McCain. It appears Senator Obama's tax philosophy is: the less you make the more help you should get. Senator McCain's tax philosophy is: the more you make the more you should be rewarded. Hard economic times would seem to dictate that Senator Obama is a more practical choice for lower and middle class Americans.

Senator McCain, who needed to sparkle up his image, was solid in his debate performance, but did little to make up his current poll deficit.  Senator Obama finished the debate season steamrolling and appears ready for the last three weeks of the campaign before Election Day on November 4.

In my debate primer found here I stressed the need for John McCain, the long-time senator from Arizona,  to show us his heart and Barack Obama, the first term senator from Illinois, to speak with candor.  On this point, Mr. Obama clearly used his eloquence to his advantage while Mr. McCain lacked a bit in his ability to emote, both performances consistent with previous debates.  What does this mean for voters?  What you see is what you get.

I have created a debate matrix to rate each candidate.  Who won the debate in these key categories?

In showing heart:  Obama

In speaking with candor:  Obama

In reasonable explanations:  Obama

In generating surprises:  McCain

In giving details:  even

In dialogue effectiveness:  even

Obama's advantages were slight while McCain's one triumph was huge.  He generated multiple surprises that spiced up the stage.

"I am not President Bush."

"Why would you raise taxes on anyone?"

"Senator Obama, your argument is not very convincing."

"I'm surprised you didn't pay more attention to this example, Senator Obama."

There were half a dozen other direct strikes by Mr. McCain that were quite interesting.  However, Mr. Obama remained cool, calm, and collected.

If You are a Democrat

You feel that Senator Obama won all three debates and is in a good position heading towards the homestretch.  Obama didn't stumble and was compact in giving policy details.  His charismatic persona seals the deal.  Can Obama even mess this up with such an enormous lead?

If You are Republican

You feel pretty good about this debate especially Senator McCain's surprise elements, key aspects of his policy, and his ability to raise legitimate concerns in the perception of his opponent.  However, he hit singles and doubles when he needed home runs.  You are nervous and left wondering how you will be able to endure a Democratic president.  What more can McCain do?

If You are Independent or Undecided

You are still wondering whether or not you can trust Obama.  You like his composure but aren't sure about his associations with Ayers and ACORN.  You will wade through additional news on these predicaments and see if your gut tells you to vote for Obama.  You like McCain's toughness and honor and he feels much more dependable.  You just aren't sure about his age and Governor Palin's credentials to be president.  You trust him but wonder whether he can really win this election.

Additional Highlights

There was good dialogue on several issues.  Bob Schieffer, though he set as an expectation to require each candidate to answer each question, didn't hold them to the fire.  Nevertheless, the levels of exchange among the candidates were higher than in previous debates and viewers were able to make personal judgments based on these interactions.

Joe the Plumber was a huge topic of discussion.  Senator McCain used Joe as a middle class example in policy issues such as taxes and health care.  If you don't know Joe, watch his interaction with Senator Obama a few days ago in Ohio.

My Advice as We Approach November 4

1. Stay tuned for anything new out of Senator McCain.
2. Watch Senator Obama pour it on.
3. Be sure to vote.

Thanks for reading my 2008 election debate news!  It has been a joy to watch and report on the battle for the next president of the United States.