Congress is considering a proposal called “cash for clunkers”. This proposal will pay people to get rid of their old fuel in-efficient cars and buy vehicles that get better gas mileage or use vouchers to ride public transportation. Senator Dianne Feinstein said the bill “would be an important part of helping get America’s struggling automobile industry back on its feet, and help consumers who are concerned about covering the cost of buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle.”

The program could run for 4 years, and it is hoped that it will retire a million older cars per year! This could save between 40,000 and 80,000 barrels of motor fuel a day by the end of the last year.

The program makes good sense to me, and I see benefit all around. What a boost for the automobile industry – to encourage people to buy cars in this struggling economy! This will help save the industry, and thus jobs for countless people.

In addition, by encouraging people to trade in their older cars for models that get better gas mileage, people will not only benefit from the initial rebate but also will benefit from the savings on gas mileage over the years. Finally, we’ll all benefit from a cleaner environment using less motor fuel.

What’s the downside to this proposal? I, for one, can’t think of any…..

Josh, high school senior

McCain and Palin think that the "fundamentals" mean workers. Really? It doesn't and it is lipstick on a pig, the pig is still a pig no matter what you try to do to change its appearance.

Economic fundamentals, are:

A very broad term which includes such economic measures as interest rates, the government’s budget deficit, the country’s balance of trade account (relating to exports and imports), the level of domestic business confidence, the inflation rate, the state of (and confidence in) the banking and wider financial sector and consumer confidence.

Still confused? Then how about this:

Economists, politicians and journalists have long referred to economic "fundamentals" as quantifiable concepts, such as unemployment rates, gross domestic product, inflation, productivity and so forth.

Moreover, in their widely used textbook, "Economics," Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus titled their first chapter "The Fundamentals of Economics," and noted that "Every society must answer three fundamental questions: what, how, and for whom? What kinds and quantities are produced among the wide range of all possible goods and services? How are resources used in producing these goods? And for whom are the goods produced (that is, what is the distribution of income and consumption among different individuals and classes)?"

No where is there a definition of "economic fundamentals" that includes the ability of workers to do a job.

McCain has claimed for over a year that our economy is strong, that the "fundamentals" of the economy are good, and we all know better. Here is what McCain has stated for over a year, and as late as Monday:

Obama hits it out of the park with this ad, and while McCain goes from "the fundamentals are strong" to "I meant the workers were strong" (actually worse considering that the workers in our nation have seen their wages stagnate over the last eight years) to god knows what today, Obama has this new ad up:

Today Obama held a town hall meeting in Missouri, and he hit a home run with his take on the economy. For instance, today and yesterday the stock market went up almost 500 points, but at the same time we read about Mervyns filing for bankruptcy, Bennigans Steak House closes all of its stores, GM cutting salaries, Starbucks posting its first quarterly loss and the list goes on.

Over the last eight years our middle class has been struggling, and now we are hurting more then ever before, electing McCain will destroy what little middle class we have left, and we just can't let that happen.

Watch Obama nail the economic issues that face us today: