Obama and Fiscal Responsibility: Like Oil and Water

The website www.USDebtClock.org quotes the US Treasury’s estimate of our national debt as being $15,991,549,710,970 and counting. If we took this number and converted it to a measure of distance, 16 trillion miles is the approximately 170,000 times the distance from earth to the sun. Light takes 2.7 years to travel 16 trillion miles. In fact, if your showers and toilets ran pure gold instead of water, it would take 329 years before you used that much money. Since President Obama’s election in 2008,  the national debt has increased by five trillion dollars. If we attributed this skyrocketing debt over the past four years to Obama, that means he and his administration have been using the gold toilet for over a hundred years.

According to the same website, the national debt per citizen is $50,889, and the debt per taxpayer is $139,981. The federal debt to GDP ratio is 104.36%, way over what it should be.  The federal revenue to GDP ratio is 32.43% and the federal spending to GDP ratio is 43.30%. During times of prosperity, the revenue-GDP ratio  outweighs the spending-GDP ratio. These numbers highlight the fact that we are indeed in a recession.

In an attempt to fix the spending patterns, the Obama administration has enacted a much more hands-on approach: the government expenditures account for 43% of the GDP. This means that the government directly decides the direction of 43% of the economy. If that’s not a fascist takeover of the American economy, then what is? During his campaign for President, Mitt Romney has said he will work to massively reduce the deficit, much like he did as Governor of Massachusetts, and his running mate Paul Ryan has already put forward specific budget plans to do so.

Let’s now consider the direct effect of the debt on the economy. Because of Obama’s massive hikes in federal spending, a quarter of the economy pays the interest on debt. This means that a quarter of the economy is doing nothing. That’s right: the GDP would be 25% higher without this massive amount of debt. Obama is only increasing America’s massive debt. To make matters worse, there are 23,088,600+ people that are unemployed and looking for work, or underemployed due to the economic situation. How can we go out and spend money to help boost the economy if we don’t even have jobs?

Furthermore, as Obama has increased the national debt substantially by $5 trillion, the United States liabilities per taxpayer have risen to over $1 million. To put this amount of cash in perspective, it would take the average person (on earth) 90 years of work to make this much money. Alternatively, the average graduate of Georgia Institute of Technology makes an economic profit just over $1 million after working for at least 30  years. Don’t forget about paying off those student loans, either: tuition costs have risen 28% under Obama. The president has put a Band-Aid , so-to-speak, on this “wound” to make yearly payments only go up 5%. However,  after paying off these loans entirely, it is still a major amputation to your overall savings.

If you  enjoy seeing government spending at an all-time high, unemployment rates sitting at a solid 8% for 42 straight months, and feeble attempts by the current administration to “fix” the economic problems by sticking the hands of the government into the mess, then by all means vote to re-elect Barack Obama. As for me, I am voting for Governor Mitt Romney because of his plans to increase investment in America. He will reduce the deficit, increase jobs, and lower income taxes.  He is an American businessman who has much experience leading large companies and will bring growth and prosperity back to America. Vote for Romney-Ryan if you believe in the founding principles of our country: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

http://obamaisntworking.com/press/american-families-are-struggling-in-the-obama-economy/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/167641/can-romney-win-over-young-voters
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/college-aid-obamas-plan-eases-the-debt-of-education-321861/
http://usdebtclock.org/#
http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/colleges_return_on_investment.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-09/measuring-college-roi
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/5-trillion-man-debt-has-increased-under-obama-502776147648456
http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/edu/sq3action.cfm

Jackets for Romney Tanks!

Our new tanks have been made! Pre-order your’s today! If you buy now, you can save $5 on the price. Fill out the form with your information, and you can pick up your tank as soon as we get them , or at the next meeting. They are $16 pre-ordered!

Size?

S.E. Cupp comes to Georgia Tech

 

The Georgia Tech College Republicans, with the collaboration of the Young America’s Foundation are hosting up and coming conservative author S.E. Cupp! Ms. Cupp will be focusing on the importance of conservatives being active, especially the younger generation. The event will take place Thursday, April 26th at 7PM in the LeCraw Auditorium (College of Management, Room 100). The physical address is: 800 West Peachtree NW, Atlanta, GA 30308.

The event is open to the public, and we will be raffling off a signed copy of Phil Kent’s book “Foundations of Betrayal: How the Liberal Super Rich Undermine America.” After the event, there is a book signing event planned with Ms. Cupp.

So come on out and support the Georgia Tech College Republicans as we end the semester with a thrill as we get ready to get boots on the ground for the November election to make sure President Obama is a one term president!

We are offering sponsorship levels to make sure that this event runs smoothly, we would like to thank all of our past and future donors!

  •  $500  Gold: A ticket to a special VIP dinner with S.E. Cupp before the program, photo op, a front row seat, a signed copy of S.E. Cupp’s latest book, and recognition in our program
  • $250  Silver: Front row seat, a signed copy of S.E. Cupp’s new book, and recognition in our program
  • $100  Bronze: Front row seat and recognition in our program

Special offer to any campaign:

If you meet or exceed a Bronze level sponsorship, we will allow you to place campaign literature on a table at the front door of the event and your campaign’s contribution will be recongnized in the program brochure.

You can mail your check directly to:

Georgia Tech College Republicans
2211 Student Center Commons
350 Ferst Drive, NW
Atlanta, GA 30332

You can also access the Facebook event page by clicking here.

Please contact the chairman, Ellie Smith, at chairman@gtrepublicans.com with any questions!

A little about Ms. Cupp from the Young America’s Foundation:
S.E. Cupp is author of the new book, “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity”  which comes out April 27th (Simon & Schuster). She is also co-author of “Why You’re Wrong About The Right,” which was published by Simon & Schuster in June of 2008.”…After two terms of George W. Bush, it’s harder than ever to know what it means to be a conservative, though for a working definition, this book is an excellent place to start.. Cupp and Joshpe have thought it through, and write with the sort of easy wit we could use more of on the right.” — Tucker Carlson.S.E. is a political columnist and culture critic. She has a regular online column at the New York Daily News, and a regular feature at The Daily Caller. She is a contributing editor at Townhall magazine, and a regular contributor to Politico’s “Arena.” She has been published in the Washington Post, Newsmax, Slate, Human Events, American Spectator, Townhall, FOXNews.com, Sports Illustrated online, Maxim online, NASCAR.com, FrontPage, Detroit Free Press and others.

S.E. is also a political commentator. She has appeared on FOXNews, MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN, Al Harra and others. She is a regular guest on “Hannity,” “Larry King Live,” “Fox & Friends,” “Geraldo,” and “Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld.” She has been heard on dozens of radio shows, including The Dennis Miller Show, The Mancow Show, The Curtis Sliwa Show, Bubba the Love Sponge, Andrew Wilkow, The Alan Colmes Show and others.

She is a graduate of Cornell University (2000) and a Masters candidate at NYU (2010). She was born in Carlsbad, CA and grew up primarily in Andover, MA. She lives in New York City.

No guns on campus: Peterson right to oppose arming Tech students

As many of you are aware, President Peterson recently interviewed with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution concerning proposed gun legislation. He said when asked if he supports the carriage of concealed weapons on campus, “Absolutely not.” Despite what you may think, I’m inclined to agree with him. Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for exercising the Second Amendment – just not in this case.

Here’s my logic: when you step forth onto a government institution, you sign away certain freedoms for the general benefit of your peers. This sounds incredibly 1984, I know, but consider why you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater – bottom line, you’re putting those around you at risk.

Imagine, for a second, that someone decided to use the First Amendment to spark a deadly stampede for the exit. Is the Second Amendment so far removed from this?

I don’t mean to imply that I think there are homicidal maniacs at Georgia Tech, but I do think tensions run high here, tempers can flare, and things can get out of hand. The argument for guns on campus implicitly dictates that all Georgia Tech students are mature, responsible adults. For the most part that may be true, but there are those for which this is not the case, and giving them the opportunity to arm themselves could be a huge mistake.

But let’s get past the argument that perhaps arming students could increase the chances for inter-student violence and return to the notion that all of us here at Tech are mature, responsible, and brilliant adults. Let’s introduce the scenario that most people fighting for concealed carry on campus are probably most concerned about John (or Jane, to be polite) Doe who lives in Towers and has a 7-10 pm chemistry lab in the basement of the CoC. Say John has a run-in with a mugger who surprises him from behind with a weapon. If John were armed, he would immediately draw his weapon and…
Now, wait a second. There is no chance the average student would have time to draw that weapon unless the robber first announced himself before jumping out, unless that student was actually Howard Darby. The only way the student would have time to ready himself for defense would be if he carried that weapon in his hand.

“Alright,” you may be thinking. “Clever enough, but you still haven’t considered an even more heinous possibility: the chance that armed students may be able to neutralize a campus-wide killing spree like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech. Surely you would want to prevent such a disaster, wouldn’t you?”

The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes,” and my heart goes out to the families of all those affected by the disaster. But arming students simply isn’t the way to get it done. Maintaining our assumptions that all Tech students are mature, responsible, and brilliant, I posit the following. Assume the shooter has taken command of a recitation class and has disarmed and subdued his classmates. Should one or even a team of Tech students barge in there to the rescue, at best one and at worst most of the students in the scenario would be seriously if not critically injured. College students are not police officers, and say what you will about the APD, but in a firefight, I know who I would turn to (or get behind, more like). President Peterson makes an additional point on the aforementioned scenario which is worth repeating: units responding to the VT tragedy were looking for an armed student. There was no time to sift the good guys from the bad. Quoth President Peterson, “I believe if a student had a gun, he would have gotten shot.”

I agree, and I prefer not to borrow trouble.

 

–Andrew Malinowski

How to reform health care…in 250 words or less A CB Ideas Piece

America must reform its health care system to become more simple, accessible and affordable, while maintaining its high standard of quality.

To increase simplicity, America must encourage economic competition by allowing medical practitioners to operate openly in a free-market system. Allowing doctors to compete will raise quality standards to higher levels while driving costs down for consumers. Fewer mandates, frivolous lawsuits and less bureaucratic red tape will empower the relationship between individuals and primary-care physicians (PCP) in addition to spurring health care innovation.

To increase accessibility and affordability, America must, as Milton Friedman advises, “…convert the patient from a ward of the state to an independent, self-interested customer.” One step towards establishing this status is to reduce the already existing fraud and waste in the healthcare system, as Congressman Norwood did in a provision of the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act that restricts illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid. The GOP alternative to Obama’s health care bill (H.R. 3400) spells out this consumer-driven approach in more detail.

Any real health care reform must first emphasize the individual.

 

– Toby Tatum

State of the (dis)Union

In his first official State of the Union address, our president treated us to an oratorical smorgasbord, rife with ethos and filled with heart-rending stories of children upset by the economy, small business owners on the rise and moving towards a new hope.

Our president has long made his mark by speaking of hope and nonpartisanship; this speech was no different. However, the policies he has advanced show his mark to be quite the opposite: an unfair representation of the will of the American people, who have clearly shown opposition to his agenda through in polls and at the polls. Perhaps his lack of response to a general change in the American public may be some of that “stubborn resilience” that he attributed to all Americans showing through. He speaks about sweeping economic recovery as if we are almost out of the tunnel, as if all that is left to us is to step out. Factual evidence suggests otherwise. When a government spends billions of money it does not have to “create” 2 million jobs (this term being White House doublespeak for jobs salvaged or saved via the Recovery Act), that is not a sign of recovery. It is a sign of a government gone out of control.

Despite this, the president feels no need to be bound by checks and balances or the petty restrictions of the Constitution.
When the Senate blocks a bill, he passes an executive order to override it (although the Constitution dictates that only the Congress may create and legislate law). For a man whose job is to enforce the law that Congress passes with the consent of the American people, he manages to use his charm and intellect to make people forget that he is flagrantly stomping on the principles that make this country great.

The president says he hates the bank bailouts, but his actions dictate otherwise. He says he has gotten the stimulus money back, but reason indicates otherwise. He says government must create conditions for business to grow, but sound economics say otherwise. He says he prevented a great depression, but an ever-mounting deficit and a still-rising unemployment rate show otherwise. He says all men must be treated decently, but his treatment of doctors, wealthy Americans and Islamic countries tell otherwise.
All in all, his every statement is laden with contradictions. While he tells not direct lies as some Republicans would allege, Obama’s rhetoric simply puts a pretty face on an ugly situation that will only get worse should this cycle of government expansion continue.

It is unfair to criticize one man for the failures of a country. However, it is imminently fair to criticize the president for not being what he makes himself out to be. This president has grossly overstepped the duties outlined for him in the Constitution; if he chooses to make himself a legislator rather than a leader, then we must treat him as such.
There is no easy way out, but blindly going in the wrong direction gets us nowhere. Spending money we do not have to get out of an economic collapse caused by big government expansion is like giving heroin to an addict to make his withdrawal symptoms better. It helps in the short term, but in the long run the problem worsens until it is incurable. Deficit spending and regulation have failed us utterly. To think that any group of human beings can predict the subtle oscillations of the market is lunacy.

There is, however, a fix for these massive deficits. The solution is to move towards an Austrian-school, free-market system of laissez-faire economics and limited government (à la Ludwig Von Mises). That is the only way to stop the endless boom/bust cycle. Those ideas and the ideas of our Founding Fathers hold the keys to lifting America out of this crisis and returning us to a position of prominence. It is only then that we can rise from the ashes and be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Man is not free unless government is limited…. As government expands, liberty contracts. -Ronald Reagan

 

–Austin Parker

In his first official State of the Union address, our president treated us to an oratorical smorgasbord, rife with ethos and filled with heart-rending stories of children upset by the economy, small business owners on the rise and moving towards a new hope. Our president has long made his mark by speaking of hope and nonpartisanship; this speech was no different. However, the policies he has advanced show his mark to be quite the opposite: an unfair representation of the will of the American people, who have clearly shown opposition to his agenda through in polls and at the polls. Perhaps his lack of response to a general change in the American public may be some of that “stubborn resilience” that he attributed to all Americans showing through. He speaks about sweeping economic recovery as if we are almost out of the tunnel, as if all that is left to us is to step out. Factual evidence suggests otherwise. When a government spends billions of money it does not have to “create” 2 million jobs (this term being White House doublespeak for jobs salvaged or saved via the Recovery Act), that is not a sign of recovery. It is a sign of a government gone out of control. Despite this, the president feels no need to be bound by checks and balances or the petty restrictions of the Constitution. When the Senate blocks a bill, he passes an executive order to override it (although the Constitution dictates that only the Congress may create and legislate law). For a man whose job is to enforce the law that Congress passes with the consent of the American people, he manages to use his charm and intellect to make people forget that he is flagrantly stomping on the principles that make this country great. The president says he hates the bank bailouts, but his actions dictate otherwise. He says he has gotten the stimulus money back, but reason indicates otherwise. He says government must create conditions for business to grow, but sound economics say otherwise. He says he prevented a great depression, but an ever mounting deficit and a still-rising unemployment rate show otherwise. He says all men must be treated decently, but his treatment of doctors, wealthy Americans and Islamic countries tell otherwise. All in all, his every statement is laden with contradictions. While he tells not direct lies as some Republicans would allege, Obama’s rhetoric simply puts a pretty face on an ugly situation that will only get worse should this cycle of government expansion continue.

It is unfair to criticize one man for the failures of a country.

Dems Get a Pass on Everything– Reid’s Comments Hypocritically Ignored

Harry Reid, our Democratic Senate Majority Leader, wants it all to go away. Lately, he’s been busy giving all sorts of speeches on why he is not racist and how many black friends he has, apologizing to all the people that he thinks matter, except, of course, the American people. For those of you who don’t know what I’m referring to, Reid was recently quoted as saying that President Obama was electable only because he was “light-skinned” and had “no negro dialect.” …As if anyone actually thought Obama was going to finally end racism and hints thereof in this country by being elected. Well, it is my sincere opinion that racism has stepped up, ironically, rather than diminishing under his presidency – and not by the folks you would normally suspect.

Conservatives always are forced to prove they are not racist, that they are tolerant, and that they mean well, while Democrats get an automatic pass because they support policies that “help” different minority groups, giving each group their “fair share.” The liberal media and liberal leaders really make sure to spell this out to their constituents and viewers. But shouldn’t it be the liberals having to prove they are not racist?

Case in point: Back in 2002, Republican Trent Lott had to step down because of supposedly racist comments he made about Strom Thurmond. He said that the country would not have been facing as many of its current problems had Thurmond been elected president (keep in mind, this was just a dumb cheer at a birthday party). Republicans blasted him, and so did Democrats. Now Democrats are denying that they ever pushed for Lott’s resignation in order to cover up the fact that they’re not pushing for Reid to step down, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Said Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2002: “Does the Republican Party think this should be their leader? I can promise you if a Democrat leader said something like this or close to it, their leadership position would be pulled, because our party feels very strongly [about racism].”

Case in point #2: Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Donovan McNabb a few years back. Limbaugh basically said that sports media was very enthralled to have a good black quarterback because that was a position dominated by whites, and thus, his talent was hyper-inflated by the press as a result of this desire to see a black quarterback rise to historical ability. Whether or not Limbaugh’s or Reid’s quotes are true is up for debate, but these episodes only shine more light on even more hypocrisy. Today, the Democrats are circling the wagons, asking us to move on and forget about Reid’s quote because there are “too many other important issues to talk about.” We are expected to forget what Reid said because he’s a Democrat and because all of the civil rights groups give him a “clean record” on race…whatever that means. Yet, recall that Limbaugh was literally blocked from becoming a minority owner in an NFL franchise just last year because of his quote from six years ago. But wasn’t it also just this past year when Joe Biden said of Obama, “I think you’ve got the first sorta mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright” and when Bill Clinton said of Obama during the primaries, “A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee?”

What Harry Reid could have said was, “Hey, I like this Obama guy. I don’t think Americans really care what color his skin is.” But he didn’t, and I urge everyone not to give Harry Reid a pass simply because he is a Democrat. Remember Reid’s quote next time some tells you that it is conservatives who dwell on race and that liberals only want the best for everyone. If only.

 

– Johnny Simmons

Afghanistan Or Bust: U.S. must renew its commitment to Middle East

The tomfoolery exhibited by various elements in our society never ceases to amaze. It is as if a state of drunken stupor persists when it comes to our commitment to the Afghan war, not to mention the Afghan people. We find ourselves in something of an “intellectual malaise,” if I can steal a quote from Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. Let me begin by stating clearly that I salute our Commander-in-Chief’s order to deploy further troops into Afghanistan. What I find distasteful is this administration’s lack of commitment to the war.

This is a war not only against terrorism but against the very fabric of oppression. Centuries of a decaying and backward society have led to great misery and hopelessness. For once – and we Americans must recognize this – it has come time for the pendulum to swing the other way. We cannot and should not desert the principle on which lay the foundations of our own nation: secured liberty for all.

It wasn’t so long ago that we almost universally embraced the war in Afghanistan as legitimate, yet it has now become a war of choice. Have we not learned anything from history? Was it not these same naysayers who critiqued the Afghan abandonment of the ‘80s, of how we up and left the region leaving the devil to wallow in his hobby room?

So, what say the Michael Moores of this world? In Mr. Moore’s recent open letter to President Obama he stated:
“You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there.”
Perhaps those who question our intent in Afghanistan should experience the level of injustices done to the Afghans not just by the Taliban or al-Qaida but also by decades of corruption and abject poverty. Indeed, it would be disastrous for the international community as a whole to ignore such a strategically crucial region in light of today’s nuclear-armed world.

The pseudo-intellectuals amongst us need to realize the severity of this issue. As leaders of the free world, we have a responsibility to uphold certain universal values. We need to lead by example, not shy away in the face of war. A long commitment is required to stabilize Afghanistan, and consequently the entire region. Anything less would be to lay down a responsibility we promised to take on. That’s neither right nor American.

 

– Anonymous