Obamas Debt More Than All Presidents Washington-Reagan

Gasp.

Obama's House and Senate

(CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3  billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration....


In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.

Paul Ryan Gives Chris Matthews a Plan to Almost Completely Reduce the Deficit - Matthews Ignores It

In this video, we get an embarrassing glimpse of Liberal, Chris Matthews, asking questions he doesn't understand the answers to, and isn't interested in. The goal: catch Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) in a "gotcha" moment. It didn't happen quite that way, and Matthews ended the segment frustrated and unable to accomplish his ambush.

See the transcript below the video  -  transcript courtesy of NewsBusters, along with reporter, Noel Sheppard's excellent commentary. Please visit NewsBusters  for additional commentary.

  Chris Matthews Schooled by Paul Ryan (video)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Congressman Ryan, is there any tax role for reducing our $1.4 trillion to $1.7 trillion debt this year -- deficit this year? Is there any role in tax increasing to help do that job?

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: I don`t think it`s a good idea, especially when we`re trying to come out of a jobless recovery in a slow- growth economy.

Look, we have got unemployment at almost 10 percent. The last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on the economy. Look, the worst thing for deficit reduction is a slow economy. You hit small businesses with these kinds of tax rate increases and you will slow down the economy further.

Look, 75 percent of those who will get hit with these higher tax rates are successful small businesses. Tens of millions of our jobs come from these small businesses. Now, if you try to blame these tax cuts and the wars for all of our fiscal problems, the numbers just don`t add up.
At best, 14 percent of the evaporation of the surplus came from these tax cuts. It all came from other circumstances: spending, economic growth declining, 9/11, all these other things.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

RYAN: So, I think what Joe earlier said is right, which is these taxes will go up. And I think that`s a mistake. And I think it`s going to hurt the economy.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you one question as a follow-up.

It seems to me every Republican that goes on "Meet the Press" lately is asked, where will you cut? They say nothing. They will not mention any cuts.
(CROSSTALK)

RYAN: Chris...

MATTHEWS: No, I have had Congressman Pence on, who won`t say any cuts.
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, you won`t cut -- you won`t raise taxes and you won`t cut spending.
RYAN: Chris...

MATTHEWS: So, in other words, all this bitching about the deficit doesn`t mean squat, because you won`t do either, raise taxes or reduce spending.

RYAN: Let me answer it, then.

MATTHEWS: Neither one.

RYAN: This year, Congress isn`t even doing a budget, but, last year, when we did a budget, I brought a budget to the floor that specifically cut $4.8 trillion of spending out of the budget and paid for all of these tax cuts and debt reduction. Two months ago, we put out $1.3 trillion in very specifically listed and enumerated spending cuts. So, I can go on with you on cuts. I can show you all the kinds of cuts.

[Newsbuster's Noel Sheppard] Good answer, right? Here was Matthews' astonishingly addle-minded response: 

MATTHEWS: But that`s one-three hundredth (ph) of the deficit. That`s 0.3 of 1 percent you`ve talked about.

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] One-three hundredth of the deficit? $1.3 TRILLION?

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] The lesson continued:

RYAN: Four-point-eight trillion dollars is not .3 of 1 percent of the deficit.

MATTHEWS: OK, 4.8 trillion. OK.

RYAN: And 1.3 trillion is not peanuts.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: It`s nothing to sneeze at.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me go. 

(CROSSTALK)

RYAN: Two things --

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] From here it became obvious what Matthews was up to. He's not interested in balancing the budget. He's certainly not interested in cutting spending.

What he's interested in is getting Republicans to say what programs they want cut so that Democrats can use that against them in the upcoming elections.

Ryan saw through the charade:

MATTHEWS: I just don`t see -- I just don`t see any program cuts. You`re talking in general terms, but let me tell you this: the major Republicans that come on television will not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They won`t cut the military. They can`t cut debt servicing. They won`t -- they won`t get rid of a major cost of government.

They`ll talk about, you know, let`s freeze discretionary spending or discretionary and domestic in some sort of generalized way. But they won`t get rid of government. They seem to like government. In fact, they love to talk against it.

RYAN: Go to Americanroadmap.org and you will see a very comprehensive piece of legislation that the CBO has scored that`s actually paying off the debt --

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] Indeed, this Roadmap was released last week, but I digress: 

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: -- with specific reforms to the entitlements you mentioned.

MATTHEWS: Name a major piece of the 1.4 trillion to 1.7 trillion. No, just take --

RYAN: OK.

MATTHEWS: -- just take a chunk out that 1.4 trillion by getting rid of a big program or good expenditure that people now watching can understand.

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] Straightforward question. Now watch Ryan give a straightforward answer that Matthews will summarily brush aside like a fly in front of the camera: 

RYAN: I would rescind the unspent stimulus funds. I would rescind all the TARP funds that aren
Now, you and I can get into a debate about Keynesian economics, whether it worked or didn`t. I don`t think it did. We increased domestic discretionary last year by 84 percent. I don`t think we should continue to build that kind of a base. Let`s go back and cut discretionary spending back to `08 levels.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: Rescind stimulus, rescind TARP and do a federal hiring and pay freeze. Those are just a few ideas that add up to $1.3 trillion right there.

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] Now, let's understand that at the beginning of this segment, Matthews asked Ryan how he plans on reducing our $1.4 to $1.7 trillion deficit. The Congressman just gave cuts to eliminate $1.3 trillion, and Matthews dismissed it totally: 

MATTHEWS: OK. Congressman Crowley, I still don`t see any cuts in entitlements there. But go ahead.

Cuts in entitlements? Matthews didn't ask Ryan to cut entitlements. Matthews asked him what he would cut to balance the budget and Ryan complied.

As such, Matthews was being completely dishonest. This wasn't about balancing the budget.
Matthews wants to get Republicans to say they'll cut Social Security and/or Medicare:

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: You asked me discretionary.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Crowley, let me ask you. What are the Democrats going to do about the deficit? Anything?

REP. JOSEPH CROWLEY (D-NY), WAYS & MEANS CMTE.: Well, I did notice there, though, Chris, was he didn`t mention at all his plan to privatize Social Security. Again, going back to the same old Bush agenda, the failed Bush agenda, the American people rejected in the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate.

(INAUDIBLE) as it may, I think Democrats have really taken steps to be more responsible. We`re working under a PAYGO system, pay as you go. And albeit there are some items that are cut off from that portion of it, we are attempting to get back a system that was proven to get our budgets in order to really -- under the Clinton administration --

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CROWLEY: -- really just -- really bring back more fiscally responsible Congress, more responsible government. It has worked in the past. Chris, I think it will work in the future. The president has said he wants to cut this deficit in half and I want to help him do that.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let`s get back to the bottom line. Are you comfortable going to the voters, Congressman Crowley, with a proposal to eliminate the $250,000 and above tax cut?

CROWLEY: I could tell you, Chris, in my district, there are very few people who make more than that money (INAUDIBLE) just a gross income of $250,000 or more. And I think, to live in the greatest country, as I said before, the world has ever known, it`s a small price to pay.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Congressman Ryan -- you have no problems defending tax cuts for people who make over a quarter a million a year?

RYAN: Small businesses -- go to Wisconsin.
(CROSSTALK)

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] Now watch Matthews either demonstrate staggering ignorance or shameful dishonesty:

MATTHEWS: No, no, individuals. It`s an individual tax cut.

[NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard] And small businesses are owned by WHOM, Mr. Matthews? The lesson continued: 

RYAN: No, no. You have to understand, Chris, 75 percent of those people who pay that tax rate are small businesses who file as individuals, not corporations. That`s the problem with this economic argument, Chris, is when you think you`re just taxing rich people like Bill Gates, what you`re end up doing is you`re hitting successful small businesses. When we tax our employers more than our foreign competitors tax theirs, they get our jobs and we lose in global competition.
So, we ought to be keeping our eye in economic growth and job creation, what`s necessary to do, and that means low tax rates on businesses and small businesses in certainty. We have a whole new tax on certainty that`s hurting economic growth. We need to give taxpayers certainty that they`re not going to have a huge wave of tax increases in 2011 and then another in 2013.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: I would argue that`s depressing economic growth and costing us jobs.

Clearly not listening, Matthews went for another gotcha question:

MATTHEWS: So, when the debt commission comes back this fall, and as a two-to-one cut in spending and a $1 increase in taxes, you`ll oppose it?

RYAN: I`m a member of the debt commission. I`m working, my colleagues --

MATTHEWS: I know.
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: If the proposal is for $2 in spending cuts, and $1 tax increase, you`re going to oppose the majority position on that?

RYAN: I don`t think it`s good form to do table talk, what`s on the table or off the table in the debt commission. I`m hoping we could put a really good dent on the problem.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, I`m with you with that.

Thank you, U.S. Congressman Joe Crowley of New York --

CROWLEY: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: -- and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Thanks again to NewsBusters and Noel Sheppard

Tea Party Caucus: Mike Pence First Member Michele Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) announced Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) is the first member of her House Tea Party Caucus, and she assures all concerned the Caucus will not become "an alternative, conservative voice to the the GOP House leadership." See a video below.

The Tea Party Caucus has its first meeting tomorrow, July 21st. Bachmann said she has been handing out invitations to attend, and the feedback has been positive. She credits U.S. Senate candidate, Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky for the idea.

From The Daily Caller:

The idea is for the caucus to bring in “real people from various walks of life” to speak to its members about issues resonating within the Tea Party movement. “Usually we invite experts in,” Bachmann said of other caucuses in the House. “Well, these are experts in just being regular Americans,” she said.

Bachmann says the Caucus is a "set of ideas" and the goal is for Americans to know they are being listened to, and to promote less spending and lower taxes - Taxed Enough Already (TEA)

Bachmann says the Caucus is bipartisian and has invited Nancy Pelosi to join...bwwwhaaaahaaaahaaaaa!



Michele Bachmann with Bill Hemmer - Tea Party Caucus (video)
Related and Background:
Ten Buck Friday Blogs Send their Bucks to Michele Bachmann Week 1
About Michele Bachmann - a profile - She is up for election in 2010
Dylan Ratigan Doesn't Like Michele Bachmann or Her Tea Party Caucus
Glenn Beck's Most Conservative in Congress: Beck Picks Bachmann DeMint
Michele Bachman video: No Illegitimate Health Care: Bachmann No Paying Taxes
Sarah Palin Hosts Fundraiser for Michele Bachmann
Michele Bachmann on Mark Levin Video

Paul Ryan: Goodbye to America's Exceptional Freedom

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has an op-ed in Real Clear Politics. We know Ryan is a great Economist, and we've seen that he is a rousingly bold speaker. Here are some snippets of his article asking Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom? (If you do not have time to read it all, look to the bottom for the bold and red text):

Paul Ryan

Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots...but the "causes" of both are the same:

Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power ... or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?

Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity ... or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?

Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism ... or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?

We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you've never seen before!

We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind's noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it's our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity, or solid growth ... between living in dependency on government handouts, or taking responsibility for our lives ... between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around, or securing everyone's right to the rewards of their work ... between bureaucratic central government, or self-government ... between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.

What kind of nation do we wish to be? What kind of society will we hand down to our children and future generations? In the coming watershed election, the nature of this unique and exceptional land is at stake. We will choose one of two different paths. And once we make that choice, there's no going back....

If you are not yet convinced:

Am I exaggerating? Are we really reaching this "tipping point"? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood.

All told, 60 percent - three out of five households in America - were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama's budget last year will raise this "net government inflow" from 60 to 70 percent. Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus - through government - supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.

There is much more, and it is worth a read at RealClearPolitics.

Thanks to BigGovernment

Karl Rove Tweets Approve Tax Increases? CBO: Debt will Rise to 90% of GDP in 10 Years:

The Obama budget will pile up $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years and our nation's debt will settle-in at 90% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).The administration missed it's estimates, or lied to us, by $1.2 trillion - or just about the same as the under-estimates for the recent health care legislation. I can't think of a pithy intro to this, so I'll just blurt it out: Karl Rove is listed among Conservatives open to tax increases.

Karl Rove

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

The debt your household was responsible in January 2008 was $56,000. In 10 years you and I will owe $170,000, according to the CBO. History shows that CBO estimates are always far too low. These are such dire times. If you think of nothing else in November, first remember that this administration has spit on the Constitution, and your household share of the country's debt will soon be $170,000+.

From Newsmax:

An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying."

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.

The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes points to the futility of believing the administrations's deficit reduction claims:

One thread that runs through all these breathtakingly erroneous projections is the lowballing of volume, which is always far greater than expected.  This shouldn’t be a surprise.  When offered a free good or a good that’s highly subsidized and thus cheaper than its real cost, people act in a fairly rational way.  They demand more of the good than they would if they had to pay for it out of pocket.  Not only that, there are invariably more people who are demanding more of that good.

Adding all this up, the unavoidable conclusion is the newly enacted health care bill – Obamacare -- has approximately zero chance of cutting the deficit.   History says it will drive up the deficit, and history doesn’t lie.

The Future of Capitalism, via TaxProf says the chairman of G.W. Bush's Economic Advisers, Glen Hubbard's WSJ op-ed piece gives 3 elements for "a better way forward," the third of which is "Confront and propose significant, broad-based tax increases...." Rove tweets that Hubbard's op-ed is a "great piece. Tell me this isn't true.

Three Reasons ObamaCare Will Not Reduce the Deficit

If anyone still honestly believes ObamaCare will reduce the deficit, this video is for you. These are points we've made many times, but if you are in the "believing" category, then you are not paying attention. Please pay some attention now. Nick Gillespie at ReasonTV explains:

"...underestimating expenses isn't a "bug," it's a feature of government health insurance plans."

In the video below, you'll hear about the 'DocFix." Read more on the 'DocFix' here. See other related links below the video. Thanks to HotAir and ReasonTV.

More from Nick Gillespie:

But not only will the legislation not cut one thin dime from the deficit, it will also certainly cost far more than the $940 billion in new spending already on the table for at least three reasons.

Three Reasons ObamaCare Won't Reduce the Deficit (video)

Related and Background:
Rep. Paul Ryan Explains Health Care Double Counting - Fuzzy Math - Video

John Boehner's Hell No! Speech

Health Care: Stopping at the Constitution - Not the White House - Not Congress

Twenty Ways ObamaCare Steals Your Freedom

Rep. Devin Nunes Health Care is the Ghost of Communism

Rep. Alcee Hastings in Health Care Debate - Rules?....We make 'em up as we go along.

Paul Ryan Explains Double Counting in Health Care: Democrat Fuzzy Math

I want to hear the Democrat answer to Paul Ryan. So far, there hasn't been one. I want to hear how  Democrats Constitutionally support the mandatory purchasing of health care. Explain the Commerce Clause and how it applies to this legislation. I want to know how this president thinks he can ruin our industries - whatever the industry. I hope lawsuits are ready to go.

Rep. Paul Ryan Explains Democrat Double Counting - Fuzzy Math(video)

Job Creation is All Government All the Time in The Time of Obama

All government jobs, all the time, in The Time of Obama

 Employment is up, wages are up, and job security is as firm as ever. Unfortunately, this is only true for federal government workers.

President Obama is presiding over the largest federal work force in decades. In the current fiscal year, the number of civilian workers will grow by 153,000, to 1.43 million. These are the only jobs Mr. Obama can legitimately claim to have created. Unfortunately, they are subsidized by deficit spending. 

Federal positions are not shovel-ready make-work jobs, either. Working for Uncle Sam pays extremely well these days. Government employment used to be a calling, a career in which a sense of fulfillment from public service offset low pay and spartan working conditions. Not so today. According to a study by the Cato Institute, 2008 federal worker pay-and-benefits packages averaged $119,982. That's more than double the private-sector average of $59,909.  

Source: Washington Times

For more read, read about the bonuses:
Fat Cat Feds Reaped While You Sowed: Federal Salaries Boom While Yours Tanks

Judd Gregg Schools MSNBC Twits Video

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) schools two MSNBC Twits. Twit One asks what programs he would cut. Twit Two asks if he would "tell schools, "no money for you." He is offended by that question, and mentions that her intro of him was misleading.

Gregg says he would institute a "real" spending freeze, eliminate TARP, saving $400 billion, end the Stimulus no later than June 2010, if not before, and reform entitlement programs. Along the way, he tells them they are duplicitous, and made "dishonest" and "irresponsible" statements. They could not wait to get him off camera. Don't miss this. Gregg knows how to handle disingenuous Liberal media.

Senator Judd Gregg MSNBC Interview (video)