Neither of these politicians will do much of what they are proposing, when they speak it all seems like they can click their fingers adn hey presto all things will change but reality has a way of workig differently. I was only weirded out by the stand up and fight comment. Fight against what, against who? what is the fight about? What is the threat?

I think McCain has a solid economic plan.

Totally fired up! I wish I could have been there!

Sound okay to me, although it's not going to help me personally one bit. I'm not unemployed, I don't have stock, and I"m not a Senior I would like to know more about his plan ...details.

I see one tax cut for the unemployed, one for people who tap their retirement accounts and three for investors. I don't see where there's anything for struggling middle and lower income families - or do they wait for their help to trickle down?

Does'nt help me either. And just curious...how does he plan to pay for all this without raising taxes? Or is this being funded by the bailout?

Adrenalynn, obama promises alot too, and says he wont raise taxes.

What Steph said.

Also add that we will all pay for the difference between what a homeowner facing foreclosure paid for their house vs what it is worth. I don't currently own a home but I am paying for my neighbors. Ok fine.

Where is the money coming from? If he is not raising taxes except to tax our health insurance and he plans on buying all of the bad mortgages and eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits, and on capital gains and still give tax cuts to companies that take jobs away from American and take them overseas and give tax breaks to oil companies that saw record profits this year... where is the money coming from?

And if he freezes spending? All except his own.. what happens to programs for people with disabled children, for unplanned pregnancies so they can have and keep their children.. what happens to roads, bridges, and other infrastructure?

I am confused. How is he creating jobs? Are we all going to be working on the oil platforms off every coast? The ones who will not produce enough oil to cover our usage and will not produce usable oil for 10 years? And that will continue to get pounded by hurricanes and spill into the ocean? Will that create new jobs..people cleaning up the spills.. I guess so. What will that then do to our fishing industry and tourism industry? Will they bail them out with billions in compensation too?

Why nuclear (is that really green anyways???) and who wants one built in their neighborhood? Why not solar and wind farms in Arizona McCain?

Arrgghhh!!!

nuclear power is clean and safe.

Obama will raise taxes on Matt Damon, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and other people making more than 250,000 a year.. on a grade.. the more you make the more you contribute.

I am a small business that makes about 150,000 a year. I expect to pay more in taxes then someone who makes 24,000 a year. That seems fair to me. Just like I would expect Warren Buffet to cough up more than me. And wouldn't it be fun to watch all of those actors begging for Obama to have to pay more in taxes?

He will also go through and cut programs that are not working and unnecessary pork. And he will tax companies that do not offer their employees medical coverage. And he will tax companies that take jobs out of America and take them overseas. And he will tax corporations that hide their money in offshore accounts. He will tax windfall profits of oil companies.

He will create more jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure (roads, bridges, pipe lines, sewers, drinking water, etc) which recently was examined and graded as a D in safety and condition.

He will create green jobs and push for technology we could patent and sell to other countries.

He would offer incentives for young people to become involved with their communities and volunteer in their local hospitals, counties, peace corp and military service by offering them lower college tuition.

I think I like it better still.

though I will swallow McCain/Palin's plan if needed.

and he will do all of that...without raising taxes.

haha this is so funny! He is at MontCo Community College by our University and we just had a meeting with the Provost of that college..such a small world!

"He will create more jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure (roads, bridges, pipe lines, sewers, drinking water, etc) which recently was examined and graded as a D in safety and condition"

Well this is something that will directly benefit me if it happens because the streets in the Bay Area are terrible, bonus points for creating jobs

"He's also going to order the Treasury Department to guarantee 100 percent of savings for the next six months if he's elected president."

Does this just mean that if someone has more than what is typically insured by the FDIC then those additional savings are safe? Is that all it refers to, or is it 401k related also?

Does this mean he's abandoned his plan to buy all the bad mortgages at face value?

I feel like there is a new economic plan a day. And I agree that no one can just snap their fingers to make it happen. It also seems like neither side is likely to embrace the other side's plan because to do so would indicate they had a better plan and we all know that is disastrous for either campaign.

This is one case where I really do think presidential politics are getting in the way of solving problems.

"and he will do all of that...without raising taxes."

Umm I think Imabel was clear taxes will be raised just not the taxes of people making under 250,000 yearly. Secondly and most importantly Americans need to stop being babies and start being willing to sacrafice in order to make this Country what it once was generations before us have done it, so what if taxes are raised yes it will hurt but if your taxes are used not to bail out wall street and to invest in to the communities, and programs that work how is that bad?

Nuclear power is expensive, produces carbon pollution(higher than fossil fuels if the entire process from uranium mining to waste disposal is included), they carry the possibility of accidents and terrorist access and it creates radioactive wastes that have to be safely stored for centuries - linquists actually are trying to create warning labels that won't be misinterpreted by future generations.

Steph why are you seriously arguing that Nuclear power is potentially unsafe? Please don't waste your time, because anybody who doesn't know this obviously can't be swayed by reasonable information!

Wind power is not a great alternative either - look into the wind farms in the UK and Germany.

Also - history has shown that lowering the capital gains tax actually brings in MORE tax dollars, not less.

"history has shown that lowering the capital gains tax actually brings in MORE tax dollars, not less."

So true, but no one likes to admit it.

Thanks - long time reader, first time poster. I was nervous!

Don't be nervous! Most of us are nice!

Wind is a tricky situation too because many people like the IDEA of wind but then don't want the actual farms anywhere close to them. Its gotten really bad in places like upstate NY, the AP even did a story on how wind energy is tearing apart families because some people are all for it and others are against it (all with valid reasons).

There is some economist whose name I can't remember who argues that there is basically like a perfect tax rate.

If you tax at 0% the government gets no money.

But if you tax at 100% there is no capital to do anything.

Taxing at 80% would stifle growth. But maybe 10% is too little.

So I think it's a misconception to always say that raising taxes results in more revenue because at a certain point that is not true, except in the very short term.

It's also a misconception to say that always lowering the taxes results in more revenue due to increased growth.

Maybe the economists name is Laffer and this is called the Laffer curve or something.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea and it seems to make sense. I just don't know what the magic number is.

"the AP even did a story on how wind energy is tearing apart families because some people are all for it and others are against it (all with valid reasons)."

Wow haus, that is crazy. I have never heard anything like that.

Maybe this is disrespectful, but after reading that all I could think of was that could be an interesting plot line for a soap opera. I could see these family members screaming and crying at each other about wind mills.

I pass them in Palm Springs on the way home to AZ.

The ones in Palm Springs, their website claims: Wind energy is environmentally positive. Annual wind generated electricity production in California displaces the energy equivalent of 5 million barrels of oil and avoids the release of 2.6 billion pounds of greenhouse gases per year, in addition to avoiding other emissions such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides which contribute to smog and acid rain.

And they are always vast areas that are unpopulated (vast areas of AZ, NM, NV, UT that have wind that could be harnessed especially if storage and transfer stations and equipment were built (guess what.. new jobs???)

And I think someone was responding to my anger that Nuclear energy somehow gets grouped with green vs purely alternative. Nothing green about nuclear energy IMO

Oy Pop, 'Dallas' with wind instead of oil?

there are many many nuclear plants 439 last count very very few have accidents , (and while we are on that, i think i hear more about coal miners getting trapped and oil refineries blowing up than nuclear meltdowns) I am working not two miles from a reactor right now...completely safe.

spent nuclear waste over time becomes less and less radioactive. after 40 years its 99.9% lower than when it was removed. McCain is also looking into ways to safely reprosses the waste into usable fuel. Nuclear power produces less waste than fossil fuel plants, it doesnt produce sulfur dioxide nitrogen dioxide,and mercury like the fossil fuel plants do. it DOESNT produce greenhouse gases directly, it does indirectly but at much smaller rate than fossil fuel plants.

as for terrorist attacks? I know from personal experiance visiting the power plants that they are very well secured , and that since 9/11 there have been new implementations of protocols.

"Expanding the amount of stock losses that are tax deductible from $3,000 to $15,000 a year for the tax years 2008 and 2009."

I see McCain's plan is nicely following the "privatize the profit, socialize the loss," concept.

There isn't one suggestion of McCain's that helps me as a grad student, paying her way through school. $2500 tax break for health insurance? Oh right, I don't pay taxes in school anymore, guess I just won't have insurance. $7,000 tax credit for each child...well, I still don't pay taxes, or have kids, but whatever. Taking over my mortgage that I can't fully pay anymore? Oh right, I didn't buy a home as a student because I couldn't AFFORD it. McCain's plans do absolutely nothing for law/medical/grad students and other recent college grads making less than $30k a year. I wonder how he is getting ANY of them to vote for him!

Oh yeah that story exists.. a father sold his farm land to a wind company and it made the son angry.. he didn't want the thing built right behind his house and having to hear the turbines whirl.

The father though could care less, he was paid a good price and felt he was contributing to a just and worthy cause and thinks his son can suck lemons if her wants to.

The town was mixed.. some of them liked them and others didn't. Once again... their is plenty of uninhabited land that the wind farms and solar farms can be built on..

I doubt these people would have appreciated and Nuclear power plant built in their backyards either.

If I had a choice I would choice the wind turbines.

Pop - I know! I was surprised when I read that story too, I'll try to find it for you.

I think wind energy is a good idea but I don't think it should be forced on people who own the land or surrounding land if they don't want it. There are areas of the country that are nearly deserted that could sustain it, but I think places like the northeast don't have as much of that area as the southwest for instance.

Again, thanks!

"Wind is a tricky situation too because many people like the IDEA of wind but then don't want the actual farms anywhere close to them."

-So true, and the further you move the energy, the more power you lose. Plus, you need conventional power stations as back-up when wind fails anyway.

agh! i can't find it!

but here is a similiar article - http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5594878

Its not so much accidents.. though when one happens it has a very negative impact.

But the nuclear waste it creates and that we have to create short term storage, long term storage, and transmutation considerations for.

Not green.. and just trading one form of pollution for another.

Obamas plan for nuclear energy:

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon
generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is
considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste
storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish
guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To
prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked
closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the
smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear
material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage,
Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead
federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis.
In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current
reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.

I think we need a combination of all these things because if we're waiting for the perfect answer, we'll be waiting forever. And we need progress NOW.

Ya know, we haven't had an enviromental story thats gotten linked in a long time! Remember all the fun we used to have with the crazies???

Man o man.. here is the point.. even if we were able to utilize solar and wind to take parts of the southwest off the grid.. that is less oil being used.. right? Meaning the overall usage has been changed for the better.. if you get California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas.. all on a mixture of solar and wind energy.. then oil is being saved and used in areas where they may not be able to best utilize these green energies.. which mean OVERALL less dependency on oil.

Other areas can utilize water.. other areas nuclear.. other areas new initiatives... it can be done.

It is really easy to say.. there is no place to put wind turbines in NY theretofore they should not be used anywhere.

John McCains stance:

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans

Now i have to say his "zero emission" just isnt true, but i agree with everything else.

Right..

They will lead
federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis.
In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current
reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.

And if we open more.. then even more toxic waste we need to figure out where to bury.

yeah.. zero emissions compared to oil and coal.. but toxic nuclear waste that needs to be stored for generations.

How about Michael Moores backyard? Sean Penn? Tim Robbins?

CG oh if only!

ima - I never said wind shouldnt be used at all. I'm just saying its not as easy as plunking them down and I think we should respect the wishes of the people who own the land and the land near it.

"Plus, you need conventional power stations as back-up when wind fails anyway."

I personally don't see this as a negative to wind power. I mean, if you can get even 50% of power from wind then that's better than nothing right?

I confess I am a little afraid of nuclear power. I wonder if we really fully understand what it's effects are. I also get really freaked about accidents. I have never forgotten the Simpson's episode where the fish ends up with 3 eyes.

"Plus, you need conventional power stations as back-up when wind fails anyway."

I personally don't see this as a negative to wind power. I mean, if you can get even 50% of power from wind then that's better than nothing right?

I confess I am a little afraid of nuclear power. I wonder if we really fully understand what it's effects are. I also get really freaked about accidents. I have never forgotten the Simpson's episode where the fish ends up with 3 eyes.

I vote Michael Moore, hands down.

Ditto CG!!

CG...he will raise taxes. If you make over $250K a year. When McCain/Palin go on and on about Obama raising taxes, they fail to tell you who he plans on raising taxes for.

MCCain - Tax cuts for everyone. Tax cuts for Corporations. With all these tax cuts...and now this economic plan, how they heck will we get out of this 10 trillion debt?

Also, I live about 40 miles from a Nucleur Plant in AZ. We had a scare a year ago when a pipe bomb was placed in the truck bed of a visitor. Someone had planted it on this poor guys car. Fortunately a keen security officer spotted it, but it's scary to think what could happen. I understand Nucleur is clean and it's safe, but I'm not a fan of building one in my backyard. Just my opinion.

I won't claim to be an expert on nuclear power, but we do need to do something fast to get rid of some of our dependency, and I think nuclear power is far more advance these days than the scary stuff we think of.

But we also need to be working strongly and quickly at finding better solutions to getting the energy and power we need. I don't want future generations to suffer, because we were too lazy. And I'd love for America to be able to offer some great new ideas/solutions for the rest of the world.

We have a nuclear reactor in my town, at the college campus its not widely known that its there, most students come and go and dont even know they pass right by that building!