Senators John McCain and Barack Obama took time out of their busy schedules to speak at the 63rd annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner, a charity event for children hosted by the Catholic Archdiocese of New York.

Both candidates did their best David Letterman impersonations by using their time to playfully poke at one another, other politicians, as well as to take a few self-deprecating shots at themselves.

You decide for yourself who hired the funnier writers:

John McCain

Part 1:

Part 2:

Barack Obama

Part 1:

Part 2:

Senator John McCain came out with guns blazing last night – placing Senator Barack Obama in his crosshairs during the third and final presidential debate.  The gloves were off and it became evident that McCain was swinging for the fences in hopes of turning around his campaign for a “surge” in the polls just three weeks before election day.

Instead, he displayed warning track power.

In a debate focused on domestic policy (finally!), McCain attacked Obama on his dubious relationships with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, his “distribution of wealth” tax policy as explained to “Joe the Plumber,” his failure to acknowledge the wrong in Congressman John Lewis’ sentiments, his relationship with ACORN, and his constant linking of McCain to President Bush.

But instead of folding, Obama thoughtfully addressed each of McCain’s points – doing a wonderful job on his explanation of the “Joe the Plumber” and Bill Ayers situations.  Obama then counterpunched by attacking McCain’s negative campaigning.

By poignantly negating all of McCain’s attacks throughout the night, Obama rendered McCain to be a little puppy, rather than an attack dog – and just may have put the election out of reach for the GOP.

But the real winner in this debate has to be “Joe the Plumber,” whose name was referenced throughout the evening.  You just can’t buy advertising like that.

Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” had a fantastic segment last night about the McCain campaign’s slandering of Barack Obama and the results thereof.

See the video here.

Last night on “The O’Reilly Factor,” host Bill O’Reilly had a segment with two professors who openly support Bill Ayers, and have signed an Internet position doing so.

However, what struck me during this discussion was when one of the professors, Dr. Alan Singer of Hofstra University, actually leaned back on O’Reilly – as “the fair and balanced” one spent the entire segment bullying around two liberals who looked as comfortable as Michael Vick at a PETA convention.

At the 3:30 point of the clip below – things get very interesting.

Is that a fact Bill?  The premise of the Iraq War was to remove Saddam Hussein as an evil dictator?  Why don’t I remember hearing about that in the time leading up to the invasion?  Why do I distinctly remember Colin Powell discussing that concrete evidence (ha!) of WMDs in Iraq as being the driving force for invasion?  Why do I remember the fictitious link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam being the driving force for invasion?

Rewriting history to suit your own agenda?  Is that your definition of a “No Spin Zone”?

For shame Bill, for shame.

When asked about tonight’s presidential debate – moderator Bob Schieffer, host of CBS’ “Face the Nation” – stated:

“By now, we’ve all heard their talking points.  We’ve heard the general outlines of what they are talking about.  The time has come to be a little more specific.  It will not embarrass me, if they go off in a different direction, to say, ‘excuse me, could you focus on the quesiotn that I just asked?’”

It is true.  What we’ve had so far is a series of debates, both presidential and vice presidental, that have been loudly criticized for not sticking to subjects put forth by moderators, and instead forcing the public to suffer through the same talking points we’ve heard for months on end.

Here’s to hoping that Schieffer holds up to his word and sticks the candidates’ feet to the fire on actually answering questions and actually providing specific details to proposal they make, rather than speaking in the same vague and general tone we’ve all become accustomed to.

Let’s all just hope Scheiffer can put an end to this nonsense:

When I woke up this morning, I flipped on CNN as I got ready for work to find out about the condition of the Asian markets while I slept last night

However, instead the anchors were speaking about the third and final presidential debate tonight between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.

In all of this week’s excitement of new proposals and plans to address the national economic crisis, the debate had actually slipped my mind.

Thus, I kept the TV tuned to CNN to hear analysis on what I should expect to see tonight.

But instead the next 20 minutes were spent explaining the requests made by each campaign in preparation for the main event.

It seems that both candidates have requested that they be placed directly below an air-conditioning vent to prevent sweating and the visualization of a 5 o’clock shadow – as was apparently evident during the 1960 debate on a dampened Richard Nixon as me matched wits with a one John F. Kennedy.

Furthermore, it appears both candidate have also asked for an exact replica of the glass that will house the water they will have in front of them tonight, so that they can practice holding, lifting, and placing said glass without potentially dropping it.

This constitutes debate analysis?

Oy vey.

The market on gaffes is no longer owned by just Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

The pressure of daily campaigning is really taking its toll…

Yesterday Senator Barack Obama unveiled his proposal to alleviate the pain put forth on American taxpayers as a result of the current economic crisis.

24 hours later, his opponent in the 2008 presidential election made public a proposal of his own to address the country’s financial downfall.

Senator John McCain’s $52.5 billion plan includes:

• Elimination of tax on unemployment benefits (similar as Obama)
• Reduction of capital gains tax by half to 7.5%
• Guarantee 100% of all savings for six months (surpassing the current FDIC cap of $250,000)
• Reduction of tax rate on IRA and 401(k) plans to 10% on the first $50,000 withdrawn

Just as we did with Obama’s plan, let’s analyze each point briefly of the McCain proposal.

Unemployment Insurance

Just as we questioned with Obama’s plan, solutions have to be given as to how the loss of revenue from taxing unemployment benefits will be made up in the federal budget. Fortunately, McCain (even as a moderate conservative) is not the prototypical “tax-and-spend” liberal (like Obama).  Nevertheless, until the public is told how such a plan would be paid for – it means little to nothing at this time – whether it comes from the mouth of a Democrat or a Republican.

Capital gains

I am very much a proponent of a reduction of the capital gains tax rate.  By reducing this rate, investors are given additional encouragement to place money in the stock market – seeing as how the returns would essentially be higher with less money going into Uncle Sam’s pocket.  By boosting investor confidence on Wall Street through making stock purchases the most profitable investment avenue in terms of tax rates, this can help to inflate the Dow and bring the economy back from the dead.  Nevertheless, how room will be made in the budget to compensate for the loss of 50% of current capital gains tax revenue is a question that begs to be answered.

Guarantee of savings

In theory, this plan makes sense.  By guarnateeing 100% of savings in banks for the next six months, the government would be giving the public a sign that despite the fact that banks are needing to be bailed out – their money is safe and cannot be lost.  But in practice, this notion seems to accomplish very little.  Currently, most taxpayers have all of their money in various investment vehicles, including banks.  The only caveat being many taxpayers have their savings dispersed amongst a wide array of banks, with each institution housing the FDIC maximum insured amount.  By insituting this plan, it only gives the public confidence to consolidate all of their money into a single bank – but only for the next six months.  This proposal does very little to actually benefit taxpayers – and rather only places a notion in the public’s mind that their money is safe and guaranteed.

Retirement account tax rates

This plan would benefit seniors who are of age to safely withdraw money from their retirement accounts.  What about the rest of the country that has suffered greatly at the hands of the subprime mortgage crisis and its after effects?  Personally, I feel that Obama’s plan to allow taxpayers to dip into their retirement accounts, penalty free, is a better vehicle to help a broader swath of the public that have retirement accounts.  Why limit the benefit to seniors?  Why not help everyone?

Despite the various criticisms directed towards Obama and McCain for their new tax plans, we should all be happy that the two presidential candidates have finally decided to set aside their partisan bickering in time to put forth opinions on how to address the economic meltdown.

Perhaps tomorrow night’s debate will even include a discussion of these new proposed plans, and more importantly how they will be paid for.  Where will the $52.5 billion to support McCain’s plan come from?  In what other areas will spending be cut to make room for this plan or Obama’s plan?

Are you listening Bob Schieffer?

Many conservatives and moderates (such as myself) greatly fear Senator Barack Obama’s tax policies – and most especially when he utters things like this:

Are you serious?  “spread the wealth around”

When did that become a tenet of capitalism?  Sounds like Obama is in favor of creating a egalitarian and classless society .

Hmm….

“Government owning a take in any private U.S. company is objectionable to most Americans – me included.  Yet the alternative of leaving businesses and consumers without access to financing is totally unacceptable.”
-Hank Paulson

That’s a slippery slope my friends.  When we allow the government to make the decision on when it is right to alter the fundamental economic principles on which our great nation was founded, we move one step closer to a Socialist (and possibly a Communist) society.

So what’s the fuss?

Well, the government put into play a plan that will allow for $250 billion in taxpayer money to be directly injected into nine of the nation’s largest banks.  For this investment, the government will receive preferred shares of stock (I think we can all agree that no one wants the government to have voting rights in private companies) and the ability to legislate executive pay (i.e. no more golden parachutes).

Thus in essence the government has ownership in the country’s largest financial institutions.  A nationalization of the banking industry.  A scary proposition to say the least.

Furthermore the plan includes money to buy troubled assets from banks, insure deposits into non-interest bearing bank accounts (used by businesses to house payroll cash), and back senior unsecured debt from banks.  This combination of moves has been put in place to put liquidity within these financial institutions and to invoke investor confidence to park their money with banks so that the credit crunch can loosen at a quicker pace.

Might this plan work?

Sure.

But we are living in very tumultuous times.  By moving the line of demarcation between capitalism and socialism, we set new precedent.  We can only hope that the line can be moved back in the future – should this plan work successfully.