How Do the Candidates Stack Up on Spending

Have you ever wondered how this years Presidential candidates stack up against each other when it comes to federal spending? Well, the National Taxpayers Union has figured up how much each candidate has recommended during 2005, and has graded each from 1995 thru 2005 (or their duration in congress). Surprise, surprise. Remember how the Democrats have tried to exploit the Republicans as big spenders and not for the little guy? Well here are a few interesting facts that might turn the heads of a few Democrats, and cause the jaws of others to really drop.

The dollar amounts indicated are in billions of dollars:

Democrats:

Joe Biden -----------------$90

Hillary Clinton--------------$378.2

Tom Dashle (2004)---------$222.3

Chris Dodd----------------$224

John Edwards (2003)-------$103.5

Barack Obama (2005)--------$11.7

Dennis Kuninich ----------------$1.87

Total = $1,031.57 Billion

Republicans:

Sam Brownback --------------$19

Newt Ganrich (1998)-------------$4.5

Chuck Hagel --------------------$85.7
Duncan Hunter------------------$15.8
John McCain--------------------$36.9

Tom Tancredo-------------------$13.8

Ron Paul-----------------------$34

Total= $209.7 Billion

Now the math may be off a little, but even by these figures the Democrat(ic) candidates have wanted to spend around $800 Billion more dollars than the Republican candidates. Are these not the same individuals that were screaming about the Republicans going to push the country more in debt with their careless spending than their party would? Go to National Taxpayers Union by clicking on the title of this post to find out more interesting facts about the democrat(ic) party and the republican party spending tactics and how they want to effect your taxes in the overall picture.

Also check out their blog and one item in particular. Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

Global Warming - Man Made or Natural

On certain subjects, I try not to go with the flow. I try to find out things on my own through conducting my own research. I try to look at both sides of the story and then draw my own conclusions. This article, I hope, is just the first of many in trying to define what Global Warming is and who, if anyone, is at fault. Understand that I am a simple person and will therefore try to explain it in a simple manner.

There is great a great alarm going on in the present that maybe has little or no basis for truth. That alarm is GLOBAL WARMING! Global Warming is defined as:"The progressive gradual rise of the earth's surface temperature thought to be caused by the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. An increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases."weather.ncbuy.com/glossary.html As you can see it has been going on for quite some time. It has occurred during specific periods between Ice Ages and even during some of those Ice Ages. Some say it is primarily caused by the distance of the earth from the sun, some say that it is a natural occurrences caused by trees ans plant life on the earth.

However, recently it has been determined that the earth is actually cooler today than 100 years ago. So I guess the question should be, When will the next Ice Age happen? Some scientist say that the cycles between Glacial Periods range anywhere from 10 thousand years to 80 thousand years. If this is the "norm", are we not in a Ice Age period now? According to some we are. But more toward the end. Thus the reason for the receding glaciers. It is true to a certain extent that part of the "warming" is being caused by pollution. But that part is minutely small.

Most scientist agree that the biggest part of the "greenhouse effect" is caused by the plant population and trees. As well as the location of the earth from the sun. Distance from the sun has been proven as one reason for Ice Ages, reduction in the earth's temperatures over an extended period of time have allowed existing glaciers to grow is size. If the temperatures are reduced over a long enough time frame the glaciers continuing growing in size till they cover large portions of the earth. Thus the same can be stated for the warm temperature fluctuations. The longer the warm up period, the warmer the temperature will be. So is the "Greenhouse Effect" and Global Warming caused more by man or the nature of natural occurrences?

I hope to disperse more information with links backing both sides of the argument in the near future as I do more research on this very interesting subject.

Hanoi Jane Comes Out of Hiding

Well, it seems that "Hanoi Jane" Fonda has finally resurfaced after a thirty plus year hiatus. Yes, Traitor Jane is back and in good voice I hear. During her speech at the anti-war rally in D.C. this last weekend, she made a big splash announcing that she was coming (back) out of the closet. As she stood shoulder to shoulder with the great Sean "Turncoat" Penn, and others on the platform, one could only travel back through time and have visions of the late sixties and early seventies.

What I do not understand, and haven't for some time, is why Hanoi Jane was never prosecuted for aiding and abetting the enemy during her earlier protest years. She was allowed to slide away like a snake in the night. Don't get me wrong. Protesting the war was one thing, but actually going to North Vietnam and parading around with the V.C., posing for pictures, and then after the release of the POW's she called them liars when they spoke out about their treatment by the North. Then somehow at the end of the war, she slithered back under her rock, never to be heard from (somewhat) for thirty years.

Now they anti-war groupies have two favorite daughters they can tag along with, Cindy and Jane. What effect will Hanoi Jane have, who knows. But you can pretty much rest assured that it will be negative.