While most aspects of the candidates economic proposals are explained, It's odd that the writer failed to include Obama's tax credit to consumers to offset gas prices, a better solution than the gas tax holiday McCain favors.

This article lays out the various policy issues facing the candidates and briefly describes their solutions. Illuminates their areas of agreement and disagreement. Good primer for deeper research.

I agree with other reviewers that the story relies too much on one "expert" opinion, a professor from Yale, who is not well known, to me at least, so it's hard to evaluate his biases or expertise. I like the chance to click to other stories for further info, but the stories added were too one sided toward McCaine for a balanced perspective.

Good overview of their platform and policies. Well written and timely.

This article actually states specific differences in policy approach between McCain and Obama. The links to the details about their proposals, which are still not well defined, at least go beyond the typical 'sound bite'.

Good start, but it needs more substance, context, sources, and a dash of intelligent cohesion for the reader to get a sense, or better, make some educated judgment, based on this article, on where both candidates are with respect to the national economy.

One thing that has galled me for years, reporters take the hand out from the candidate, pass it on & walk away. No effort is made to " Ask the next question " as Theodore Sturgeon, would say. If no effort is made to elicit information from the candidate you are publishing thin air, not substance. That is how the "Chimp in charge" sold bullshit to America. CNN's reporting is just minimal. At least it is not FAUX.

Conspicuous by its absence was FTA and the fact that free-trade is undermining the American middle-class.

This seems loaded against Obama by the use of terminology "subsidies" and by minimal and somewhat dismissive explanations of Obama's positions as contrasted to lengthy explanations of McCain's. The last paragraph seems grafted-on by an editor to provide "balance".

There was a significant absence of serious discussion of the policy proposals or of "expert" opinion in this article. More disconcerting is the "bubble" in which the discussion took place: the economy is an isolated phenomenon, with no mention of international factors. One obvious example would be to look at the candidates respective stances on "free trade". The other being a discussion of connecting the costs of the Iraq War to domestic issues (such as the federal budget deficit).

VERY good article. Presented the ideas of the candidates with sources cited and links to read more throughout the article. Very balanced in reporting the economic plans for the candidates.

The article is balanced and put forth both candidates positions.

The story is biased toward right wing economic policy; supposedly a "fair and balanced" review of each candidate's policy on taxes, social security, health care, mortgage crisis, energy and spending, almost every section subtly favors McCain. For example, the closing remark under taxes is from some Harvard guy finger admonishing Obama for daring to suggest an increase of up to 28% on Capital Gains; the final quote is from Sage Harvard and undoubted stock hold Graetz: "You can't go above 25% without losing a lot of money." Next! Social sec. section ends with a query on Obama's strategy, giving McCain a free pass. On health, McCain's ridiculous tax credit plan is uncriticized and the "rationale" for it is provided; Obama's ... More »

Good overview of each candidates position of major issues.

This story is very superficial and does not explain how each candidates policies will impact average Americans. This is to the benefit of John McCain, whose policies do not work for average Americans.

It was informational only.

I found this to be a good article. I'd call it McCain and Obama for dummies. I mean that in a good way. It doesn't presume that the reader already knows the candidates' positions and the information is very relevant to the site. It doesn't seem to lean towards any particular candidate's polices either; it just lays them out there in simple terms.

The story relies too much on one "expert" opinion, a professor from Yale, who is not well known, to me at least, so it's hard to evaluate his biases or expertise. I do like the chance to click to other stories for further info.

At first glace it appears relatively balanced; however, I did notice the use of the word "entitlement" to refer to programs for the economically disadvantaged (which is waving a flag to the extreme right).

Article would have been better to focus on a single economic issue rather that touching on lots of differences, providing no substance. I bet that Obama will have a field day educating seniors on McCain’s harsh idea of reducing their benefits while at the same time he also favors letting market forces drive down the cost of health care. Enron and the free market disaster should be enough warning that free market does not work but Ole Mc thinks this is such a swell idea he wants to allow interstate health insurance that we the people can buy. This guy must have never had to deal with insurance companies. McCain says that: “people have no incentive to be cost-conscious about their health care” where does this come from? ... More »

Clearly explains economic platform of each candidate. I thought it informative and unbiased.

In the housing section, no mention of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, which unregulated the mortgage industry, being sponsored by McCain's top financial advisor Phil Gramm.