Rep. Kaptur ignores debt issue in criticism of Rep. Ryan’s budget

Register
Apr 29, 2014

According to an April 23 Register story, U.S. Rep Marcy Kaptur, D-Toledo, doesn’t like the impact a federal budget proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., supposedly would have on education.

Speaking April 22 at a BGSU Firelands community forum, Kaptur reportedly said the Ryan budget “would cut one-third across all accounts, from Pell (grants) and work investment funding” and that it would “leave casualties everywhere, from students to retraining”

The Register dutifully reported Kaptur’s claim, so now why doesn’t some enterprising reporter call Rep. Ryan and ask why he’s proposing cuts? Is he trying to punish students or could it be he’s extremely concerned about our $17 trillion and growing total national debt?

Indeed, are there harmful economic consequences of a massive debt like that, not to mention unfunded federal liabilities of $60 trillion (I’ve seen as high as $100 trillion), and the debasement of our currency — all fueled by profligate federal spending and unreformed federal entitlement programs? I happen to believe there are, and it appears we’re on course to experience them in the not-too-distant future.

Also, here’s another possible story: Have taxpayer-subsidized, low-cost loans like Pell and Stafford grants distorted normal supply-and-demand market forces and, as a result, greatly increased the cost of a college education, leaving many young borrowers saddled with huge amounts of debt?

I doubt you’d get an objective answer about that from a Democrat like Kaptur, so I suggest you contact someone like Dr. Richard Vedder, distinguished professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University and director of The Center for College Affordability & Productivity. I’ll bet he would be glad to speak to a Register reporter.

— Jeff Reed
Norwalk

Comments

JMOP

Maybe that 600lbs. Person had a weight of 1,200lbs. so it was cut in half.

Didn't Obama promise if he didn't cut the deficit in half in his first term, he wouldn't run again? Why would we believe a liar?

coasterfan

I think that he vastly underestimated how hard the GOP would try to undermine his every move. I'm amazed at how much he has accomplished with the other party paddling in the other direction. Imagine where America would be today, if Republicans as interested in helping Americans as they are saying NO to anything he has proposed.

He hasn't been perfect - who is? - but he is a HUGE improvement over his predecessor, and as a result, we are better off than we were in 2008, at the low point of the Bush Recession.

Dow 2008: 7949
Dow Today: 16,459
Unemployment 2008: 7.8%
Unemployment Today: 6.7%
GDP Growth 2008: -5.4%
GDP Growth Today: +4.1%
Deficit/GDP 2008: 9.8%
Deficit/GDP Today: 3.3%
Consumer Confidence 2008: 37.7
Consumer Confidence Today: 78.1

Yeah, I think I like 2014 a lot better than how things were under Republican leadership.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

The lowest single point of 2008 was the week of November 17 at 8046. It was 6626 the week of March 2, 2009. Of course single points in time are ripe for cherry picking and allow for the lack of any kind of context. They also apparently invite attribution to people who may not deserve it.

Now let's take a look at the labor force participation (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/L...):
2008 - Averaging around 66
2014 - So far around 63
So it would seem that less people are working overall.

Unemployment (http://portalseven.com/employmen...)
Your number for 2008 was the first for 2009.
2008 - Started at 5.0 and ended at 7.3.
2014 - Started at 6.6 and "ended" at 6.3.
This is for the "U3" number, of course.

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.

2008 - 9.2 start, 13.6 end
2014 - 12.7 start, 12.3 "end"

So now we see that we still have very high unemployment despite the fact there are less people working, looking for work, or have full time work.

Your GDP figures are also cherry picked. Let's take a look shall we? (http://useconomy.about.com/od/GD...)

2008 GDP for the Year: -.03% (-.3% in 2011 revision, 0% in 2010, .4% in 2009)
Q1 2014:

Advance Report - Scary-low growth of only .1%. Exports dropped 12%, while business spending fell 6.1%.
2013 GDP for the Year: 1.9%

It's certainly better than nothing but far from your uncited figures. I'd hope for better from a former teacher.

How about debt and deficit? (http://www.usgovernmentspending....)
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion
† Some people have emailed to insist that the FY 2009 deficit should be assigned to Obama. Sorta.

Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 billion
FY 2014*: $649 billion
FY 2013: $680 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion
* Federal Deficit is budgeted.

Federal Debt? (http://www.usgovernmentspending....)
Today’s Federal Debt is about $17,635,474,940,000.
The amount is the gross federal debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury since 1790. It doesn’t include state and local debt, and it doesn’t include the so-called unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Federal Debt per person is about $54,047.

FY 2009 $11.9 trillion
FY 2014* $17.9 trillion
* Federal Debt after 2013 is budgeted.

Consumer Confidence? (http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/27/...)
Consumer confidence: Worst since '92
Conference Board's measure falls more than expected in May amid concerns about a weak labor market and poor business conditions.

Here's one about what we know so far about 2014. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/20...)
Consumer Confidence in U.S. Declines More Than Forecast
Consumer confidence fell more than forecast in February as growing concern about the U.S. economy’s direction outweighed improving perceptions of its current state.

So overall it only took about SIX TRILLION dollars of public debt poured into various places like the DJIA to artificially prop up a tepid economy. Only more and more will be spent and as indicated it's budgeted.

As for "unfunded liabilities"? Here's a snapshot from the GAO about the Post Office alone. (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-...)

More broadly, let's think about this: You Think The Deficit Is Bad? Federal Unfunded Liabilities Exceed $127 Trillion (http://www.forbes.com/sites/real...)

This isn't even about the dumb sterotypical gripe of those receiving government benefits. This is about each and every single United States citizen facing a very real threat of financial oblivion overall or either a severe reduction in benefits or sharp increase in taxation. In the end it is going to be those who one way or the other rely on those benefits what will suffer the most because of the same policies that are intended to help them.

Those same people such as the record breaking number of food stamp recipients (not begrudging, simply pointing out to contend your paradisaical evaluation of taking 2014 over 2008) and those receiving super duper long term unemployment are the scraps fought over by Congress as this unsustainable spending continues. Something's gotta give soon and I can assure you it is the most financially susceptible (and ignorant even if not by their own accord) among us that will bear the greater burden.

The Big Dog's back

The old saying hz, figures don't lie, but liars figure. You did a lot figuring to try and make your point.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Please state your specific gripes with my sourced material or claims that the least among us who cannot produce for themselves for one reason or another will bear the brunt of the financial hardship we face.

grumpy

Thanks for expanding on the numbers I came up with. It helps put the economy more into context when comparing the present state of the country to what it was under bush. It doesn't show what would have happened if a different president or congress. It only can show what has already happened. We can't go into a wayback machine and change what has happened and see what the difference would be, we can only see what has happened with this president, congress and the laws, and policies that were made. Thanks for making the effort to put the numbers into more of a context.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

What's really concerning is that I heard a report on the radio that the total number of people working is the same as 2007, however our population has grown by 16 million over seven years. There's many factors that play into it but that's a sobering starting point from which we can explore the context of how things are today.

grumpy

Thanks for expanding on the deficit numbers I came up with, I got tired of writing and copy and pasting. You have more stanima than I, good job! It helps put the economy more into context when comparing the present state of the country to what it was under bush. It doesn't show what would have happened if a different president or congress. It only can show what has already happened. We can't go into a wayback machine and change what has happened and see what the difference would be, we can only see what has happened with this president, congress and the laws, and policies that were made. Thanks for making the effort to put the numbers into more of a context.

paws4thought

The economic problems have not been caused by the Democrats or Republicans but by politicians, including BOTH Dems and Repubs. The solution is not going to be found either with the current incumbent politicians nor by the inept administration currently in the Whitehouse. The ones in charge of this are the American voters (only one vote per legal citizen, thank you) and they are the ones who have the power to change things.

Donegan

How much do we need to run the country today? Well if you ask the admin there never is enough because they keep creating programs that cost trillions and do nothing (Obamacare for example, 2 trillion dollars and they are not even breaking even when half the bill is being OBSTRUCTED by your god).
Look there goes another 85 billion to wall street because our economy is doing so good! I wonder who is going to pay that bill when it comes due?

I

Coaster, let me help with your confusion. Since 1980, there has only been a single democrat president to finish his term, period! Bill Clinton. You can't yet count Obama as he still has 2&1/2 years to continue his destruction. So, who controls spending in Washington? Congress! Now, who controlled both houses of Congress during Clinton's last six years in office? The GOP. You seem to like pointing to 2007-2008 as the worst economic disaster in 90 years. Do you know which party controlled both houses of Congress during that time? Wait for it...The democrats! I'll give you a little credit, you never said that you would go to the dims for anything related to the economy/deficit/debt.

coasterfan

Nice try, dude, but you're not going to blame the recession on Democrats. No confusion here. I just look at recent history and see things clearly. You, unfortunately, look at the same history and see things through your skewed Republican filter, a complete alternate reality.

And you know what? Mine is the majority opinion, otherwise, Obama wouldn't have been elected and re-elected. Nobody believes the Republican baloney anymore...

I

I didn't mean to upset you, coaster. I realize it's tough to face the facts, not your facts. Just pointing out your failed thinking that all things dem are necessarily good and all things repub are necessarily bad. You really need to work on that bigot thing!

coasterfan

Nice try, dude, but you're not going to blame the recession on Democrats. No confusion here. I just look at recent history and see things clearly. You, unfortunately, look at the same history and see things through your skewed Republican filter, a complete alternate reality.

And you know what? Mine is the majority opinion, otherwise, Obama wouldn't have been elected and re-elected. Nobody believes the Republican baloney anymore...

Darwin's choice

So, troll, why is it you feel the need to post on this paper's blog, if everything is so wonderful?

You have no ties here, you're a hillbilly, and still are trying to convince someone of your down-the-drain-heading-party's greatness!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

My apologies to all the hillbillys I've insulted by comparing coasterfan to you!

Darwin's choice

......you wouldn't go to a "never ran a business, only life experience of community organizing, questionable American, muslim following, chicago thug experienced "present" voting senator" for President either....! From the same party that's given us Detroit and Chicago...

coasterfan

Actually, he has 5+ years in the Oval Office, so the "he isn't experienced" argument is both silly and wrong. I'm sorry to hear that you've fallen for the extreme rightwing nonsense about Obama. What I like about Obama is that he is a normal guy, a bit of a nerd, and very intelligent - the exact opposite of a thug.

Darwin's choice

So,forget the rest? Detroit, Chicago? Run into the ground by democrats! And obama was exactly what I said he was, he had no experience at anything else, before being propped up in his current position..failure in chief!

grumpy

Re: "Why would anyone think to look to Republicans for advice on the economy, anyway? Since 1980, the deficit has GROWN under every single GOP president, and has SHRUNK under every single Democratic president."

You are 100% correct that the deficit has come down from Bush's last year. But lets look at what both Presidents deficit's have been.

Bush...................................................Obama..............................................................

2002........159 Billion.........................2010...........1294 Billion......................................
2003,,,,,,,,304 Billion.........................2011...........1300 Billion....................................
2004........412 Billion........................2012...........1087 Billion.....................................
2005........318 Billion.........................2013............680 Billion.......................................
2006........248 Billion.........................2014............648 Billion Projected by CBO.........
2007........161 Billion.........................2015............564 Billion Projected by CBO..........
2008........458 Billion.........................2016............432 Billion Projected by CBO......
2009......1413 Billion........................2017.............482 Billion Projected by CBO........

Totals....3473 Billion............................................4361 Billion first 4 years actual ........
...........................................................................2527 Billion 2nd 4 years Projected...
...........................................................................6888 Billion Total ......................

Obama deficit spent more in his first 3 years than Bush did in 8 years. CBO project Obama to deficit spend nearly twice what Bush did after both served 8 years.
It is projected that Obama will add more to the National debt than all presidents before him... combined. But coasterfan thinks that repubes are bad economically and dims are great economically. What do YOU folks think?

Bush had highest single year deficit. Obama had next 6 highest deficits.

These are Fiscal Year Numbers end of August to first of September.

You can check my numbers by going to the CBO website or numerous others that have the deficits and National Debt numbers.

This is the second time I have brought this to coaster's attention... He must think I don't remember it. He didn't respond last time and I don't expect him to this time. He should know I have these numbers bookmarked... just waiting for next time... and him not responding... again.

Dr. Information

Coaster jump off freaking bridge already.

pntbutterandjelly

What most of you are not considering is the Big Picture. Now that the U.S. is no longer tied to the gold standard...we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. The printing presses keep making more money and there is nothing behind it of value. Its only "value" is that we all trust (hope) the next person will accept it as a means of barter. This caveat currency is a cancerous noose around our necks that WILL come back to bite us (HARD!) in the rump. It is the Grand Daddy of all Ponzi schemes. I know this comment is WAY off subject but...more people need to know about it, discuss it and be as prepared as you can for the human tragedy that is coming.
Any thoughts?

grumpy

You post this comment in an article that is on page 6 that has had one other new post added to it in the last 2 days? Do you really think many people will look this far back? You are 40 years too later to do anything about going off the gold standard. It should have gone to some other commodity to back the dollar. Today I would say oil, but 40 years ago I would have to look and think about what should have been used. To use gold again the dollar would take quite a hit in value or else gold would be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions per ounce. There is way too much cash out. Besides Social Securiety is giving the dollar a run for biggest Ponzi Scheme. In 20-30 years the unfunded mandates will be peaking. Currently I think that there is one worker paying for each one retiree on SS. 20-30 years of baby boomers will break the system.

Pages