[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:National debt of the United States: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Csdidier (talk | contribs)
184 edits
→‎Various Rants: new section
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:National debt of the United States/Archive 3) (bot
 
(266 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{FailedGA|12:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)|topic=|page=}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=12:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=291850232
|currentstatus=FGAN
|itn1date=6 August 2011
}}

{{American English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance = mid}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 2
|counter = 3
|algo = old(100d)
|algo = old(100d)
|archive = Talk:United States public debt/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:National debt of the United States/Archive %(counter)d
}}

{{WikiProject Economics
|class = B
|importance = mid
}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy
|class = <!-- a class specified here overrides the automatic rating based on the numerical scores -->
|importance = <!-- this works just like the usual WikiProject importance ratings -->
|comprehensiveness = <!-- 1-10 -->
|sourcing = <!-- 0-6 -->
|neutrality = <!-- 0-3 -->
|readability = <!-- 0-3 -->
|formatting = <!-- 0-2 -->
|illustrations = <!-- 0-2 -->
}}
}}
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|auto=yes|search=yes}}


== Understanding the Debt Held by the Public / Debate about Whether it is "Real debt" ==
== Carmen & Rogoff debt-to-GDP threshold at 90 % is gross debt NOT public debt ==

The Intragovernmental Holdings are Securities held by Trust Funds which are vital to the United States Governments ability to function, so in order to prevent eventual collapse, we most certainly need to make sure that those obligations are met and paid.

The holders of the Debt Held by the Public, are entities with money to invest: foreign nations, private investors, and speculators. Since these holdings are not so vital to the Nations health, it would be easier for us to say to the holders, "Sorry, that's the chance you take when you invest your money . . . Thank you for playing." Generally speaking, these holders are investors who are more accustomed to taking a hit on their investments.

Having established that the Debt Held by the Public is a lesser priority, this brings up the question "Is Debt Held by the Public real debt?" Perhaps we should use the Intra-governmental holdings as the true measure of the U. S. National Debt . . . this would send a clear signal where our (as a Nation) priorities lie. [[Special:Contributions/18.4.15.74|18.4.15.74]] ([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.255.168.254|71.255.168.254]] ([[User talk:71.255.168.254|talk]]) 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:FYI if you use this [http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/markets/national-debt.shtml U. S. Treasury web page] as a guide:
{{quotation|There are several different concepts of debt that are at various times used to refer to the national debt: . . . . Debt held by the public is the most meaningful of these concepts and measures the cumulative amount outstanding that the government has borrowed to finance deficits.}}
:then your view is in direct contradiction to the view officially endorsed by the U. S. Treasury.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


:UPDATE: I sent a barrage of emails to the U. S. Treasury asking them if this website was representative of the official position of the U. S. Treasury. This website stated clearly in plain English that there were "several different concepts of debt that are at various times used to refer to the national debt" . . . this website then went further to explain that "Debt held by the public is the most meaningful of these concepts and measures the cumulative amount outstanding that the government has borrowed to finance deficits." . . . I received an answer, but it wasn't a straightforward answer . . . anyway . . . the website has since disappeared . . . I'm not sure what that means or if my emails had any impact. [[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

== Scratch Pad for banging out the definitions of terms ==

''U. S. Treasury Vocabulary:''

<B>Public Debt</B> - U. S. debt in the form of securities issued by the Treasury.

:UPDATE: I sent a barrage of emails to the U. S. Treasury asking them if this website was representative of the official position of the U. S. Treasury. This [http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/markets/national-debt.shtml website] stated clearly in plain English that there were "several different concepts of debt that are at various times used to refer to the national debt" . . . this website then went further to explain that "Debt held by the public is the most meaningful of these concepts and measures the cumulative amount outstanding that the government has borrowed to finance deficits." . . . I received an answer, but it wasn't a straightforward answer . . . anyway . . . the website has since disappeared . . . I'm not sure what that means or if my emails had any impact. Csdidier (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:I've spoken with a professional historian who specializes on the Public Debt . . . I'm just waiting for the U. S. Treasury to either clearly confirm, or disconfirm the definitions I've listed here . . . there are some implicit inconsistencies within them . . . anyway that's not my problem . . . that is the U. S. Treasury's problem . . . if they ever give me a straight answer I'll let you know.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 02:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

'''Public Debt Outstanding''' - The face amount or principal amount of marketable and non-marketable
''Public Debt'' securities currently outstanding[http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#LimitDifferences <sup>1</sup>].

'''Public Debt Subject to Limit''' - The '''Public Debt Outstanding''' adjusted for Unamortized Discount on Treasury Bills and Zero Coupon Treasury Bonds, Miscellaneous debt (very old debt), Debt held by the Federal Financing Bank and Guaranteed Debt[http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#LimitDifferences <sup>1</sup>].

:In many Treasury publications, you will see a distinction between Federal Debt securities meaning securities issued by all Federal agencies, and Public Debt securities meaning those securities issued by the U. S. Treasury, but if you look at the MSPD published by the bureau of public debt, they include ''the Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies''. This doesn't make sense because these securities aren't issued by the Treasury, so they are not Public Debt securities. They are not counted in the Total Public Debt Outstanding, but they are counted in the Total Public Debt Subject to Limit.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 10:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Statuatory Debt Limit''' - The limit that Congress imposes on the amount of ''Public Debt'' Securities the U. S. Treasury can issue. The U. S. Treasury can issue as many securities as it needs as long as the '''Public Debt Subject to Limit''' does not exceed the '''Statuatory Debt Limit'''. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Csdidier|contribs]]) 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

<B>Gross Federal Debt</B> - The ''Public Debt'' plus the guaranteed debt of government agencies other than the Treasury[http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/noll.publicdebt <sup>2</sup>].

<B>Intra-governmental Holdings</B> - The portion of the ''Gross Federal Debt'' that is held by U. S. Government entities.

<B>Debt Held by the Public</B> - The portion of the ''Gross Federal Debt'' held by entites that are not part of the U. S. Government.

<strike>'''National Debt''' - According to the U. S. Treasury, '''Public Debt''', '''Gross Federal Debt''', and '''Debt Held by the Public''' are all concepts that can be used to define the term '''National Debt''', with '''Debt Held by the Public''' being the most "meaningful"[http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/markets/national-debt.shtml <sup>2</sup>]. </strike>
:Before the website referenced above appeared, the U. S. Treasury had never formally defined the term ''National Debt''. This website had suggested a "preferred" definition of the term ''National Debt''. The website referenced above has been taken down however, so I'm not certain, but I believe this means that we are back to where we were before that web-site went up . . . which is . . . the U. S. Treasury has never formally defined the term ''National Debt''. User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


<BR>

''Terms Not Defined by the U. S. Treasury:''

<strike><B>National Debt</B> - A debt accrued by a nation. When applied to the United States, there is some contention as to which of the official U. S. Government terms this refers to (see terminolgy dispute), but throughout this article, this term is used to refer to the <B>Public Debt</B> when referring to the U. S. National Debt.</strike>

<B>Government Debt</B> - A debt held by a government. When applied to the U. S. Government, there is some contention as to which of the official U. S. Government terms this refers to (see terminolgy dispute).

<strike><B>Federal Debt</B> - A term which is synonymous with either the <B>Gross Federal Debt</B>, or the <B>Public Debt</B>. This dual definition is justified by the assumption that the difference between these two figures is negligible.
</strike>(federal debt was formally defined by the Treasury in 1973)

<B>Gross Debt</B> - <strike>It seems that previous editors were using this term to refer to the total <B>Public Debt</B> outstanding.</strike> On second thought, ''Gross Debt'' is most probably meant to refer to what the GAO calls the ''Gross Federal Debt'' which is the same thing as what the U. S. Treasury defined in 1973 as simply the ''Federal Debt''. This usage is in accordance with non-governmental budget policy advisory groups such as the [http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3197 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities].[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== request ==

table showing change in deficity by president. I know that at some level this is silly, as long term trends can overwehlm what a president does, but I think alot of people wouldlike the data. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.67.134.245|75.67.134.245]] ([[User talk:75.67.134.245|talk]]) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

need a chart to show national debt and deficit as a percentage of IRS tax revenues collected for the same year. debt as a percentage of revenue is way more meaningful and more accurate than debt as a percentage of GDP. no ambiguity in terms of dollars of revenue collected in taxes and payments to the u.s. treasury. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.138.67.226|69.138.67.226]] ([[User talk:69.138.67.226|talk]]) 03:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Unilateral US debt cancellation method towards Beijing chicom and only chicom ==

There is some rumor recently that USA will unilaterally cancel and declare null-void all of its debt towards chicom and only chicom, before year 2017, before the Bald Eagle's currently undisputed naval and air military supremacy starts to wear out.

I think this option should be discussed in this article, because the conditions in favour of USA make this option a very likely outcome!

- Red China could not oppose such a move but in words, lacking aircraft carriers or assault landing capital ships and 5th generation fighter jets, unable to invade either USA or Japan (although South Korea may temporarily fall victim to a land-based chicom invasion in such a case.)

- The cancelling of all US debt towards chicom would make huge sums of money available towards flawlessly fulfilling all other international creditors of USA, therefore such a move would be well-received in international stock markets and supported by all countries outside the Russo-Chinese sphere of influence (i.e. Eastern Eurasia and Africa).

- It is dubious if "letters of marque and reprise" issued by Red China gov't would entice many countries to help Beijing force USA to pay. Maybe Russia and some 3rd world countries would join chicom with their words and arms, for a share of the spoils, but they are not significant with regards to military might or hi-tech industrial output, which are decisive in modern warfare. Red China has much less nukes stockpiled, than France or Tel-Aviv for example! Neither Mexico or Canada is a significant force and otherwise USA is ocean-bound and the seas are under bald eagle's firm control.

- The USA could still recognize her debt towards the chinese PEOPLE, that is the Bald Eagle's duty to remove the oppression of communism from the great asian nation and allow all yellow skinned people to think, speak, worship, associate, invest and enterprise according to their free will. Such a gift of mental and economical liberty to the chinese people could replace the vast monetary payment which US currently owns towards the communist politburo of Red China. The world would recognize the proper egality of such an exchange!

- America has the potential to live without chinese imports, since her population has strong protestant work ethics and they were able to supply themselves and much of the world with all desired industrial output until the 1970s. Americans would have to work a bit harder again and not balk at sewing shoes, that's it. Furthermore, mexican people would be happy to take the place of chinese labourers.

Therefore this Wikipedia article should discuss the aspect of US unilateral debt cancellation with regards to bonds collected by the Beijing chicom leadership! [[Special:Contributions/82.131.128.121|82.131.128.121]] ([[User talk:82.131.128.121|talk]]) 17:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

: Unlikely as it's just a rumor - see [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. Also, unless it's discussed in reliable sources, there's no way to put it in the article. <b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font> 17:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

: This sounds WACK . . . I don't know who chicom is . . . If the U. S. Government were to do a specific and quarantined default on U. S. Treasury Bonds . . . I would imagine they would isolate and default on the OASDI Trust Fund (Much more money to be certain!). . . but I wouldn't even expect them to do that! . . . That would be unprecedented . . . after 200 years of making sure the interest on U. S. Treasury Bonds was paid on time . . . after 200 years of building up credibility and making sure that people knew that U. S. Treasury Bonds are the safest (risk-free) investment in the world . . . a move like that would be silly . . . and if this idea had any credibility it would certainly make the front-page news of the New York Times! . . . So I apologize but I dismiss this entry as "WACK" . . . I'm not even going to bother to look up what "chicom" is on the internet. . . . [[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

::this sounds like general Communist chinese porpaganda more then anything. and even if we did do so, china would still own us around $11 trillion, as we gave them billions of dollars in the 1940s after world war 2 in a system similar to the marshall plan. [[User:Joesolo13|Joesolo13]] ([[User talk:Joesolo13|talk]]) 23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

== Whoever Put those definitions up in the intro paragraph . . . Thank You! ==

Seriously, that's great!
Nice and clear!
No ambiguity . . .
One small technicality I'd like to mention however . . .
The formal definition of ''Debt Held by the Public'' includes ''Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies''
which are NOT issued by the U. S. Treasury.
This is merely a technicality and a formality . . .
And I'd like to stress that the addition that you've made to the introductory paragraph is such an
enormous gesture of benevolence not only to the intelligent wikipedia-reading, voting U. S. Public
but to the entire human race . . . that I will easily forgive this technicality for at least 6 months.

I'm busy sending emails to the U. S. Treasury . . . One website has been taken down . . . I think
my emails may have had something to do with that . . .

I'm now trying to see if I can get them to straighten out their publications . . . I'm just going
to keep pummeling them with reason until either they convince me that they are right . . . or I can
convince them that I am right.

this is what I'm working on:

[http://plugsandwire.com http://plugsandwire.com]

Again, thanks [[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 03:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

== nuclear weapons ==

I'm undoing [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=United_States_public_debt&diff=411485960&oldid=411446274 this edit]. It looks like [[wp:synth|synthesis]]. I admit to being biased against things which say, "the debt can be attributed to X", because depending on how you order revenues and expenditures you can get lots of different things. In any case, I'll put aside that bias if one of the sources gives that conclusion on its own, rather than an editor putting different sources together to make the conclusion. (Also, the Brookings book should be referenced with page numbers.) [[User:Cretog8|C<small>RETOG</small>8]]([[User_talk:Cretog8|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cretog8|c]]) 03:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with you Cretog8.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 04:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

::It was indeed synthesis, because I could not remember where I first read that nuclear spending had approached $4 trillion, but it was in the late 90s. So just FYI, the same editor of the Brookings study wrote this about 3 years prior (1995) to the 679-page behemoth of '''''Atomic Audit'' (1998)''':

:::''"...the total figure will likely be equal to the $5 trillion national debt. In short, one quarter to one third of all military spending since World War II has been devoted to nuclear weapons and their infrastructure...'' -- "Four Trillion Dollars and Counting," Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Committee, Steven I. Schwartz, p. 33, ''Bulletin of Atomic Scientists'', November 1995.

:: See [http://books.google.com/books?id=DQwAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA33&dq=national%20debt%20attributed%20to%20nuclear%20weapons&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q=national%20debt%20attributed%20to%20nuclear%20weapons&f=false Google Book Link]. I am reinstating the edit shortly with another source or two, since not only had Schwartz (Brookings Institute) foreseen the link to the national debt, others had, also. Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr. has been quite an influence in nuclear policy and is a good source. So yeah, the debt and the nukes are closely tied! Inseparable, as they say. [[User:Uruiamme|I like to saw logs!]] ([[User talk:Uruiamme|talk]]) 08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Just because the amounts are the same doesn't mean the public debt can be attributed to that source of spending. It could be the dramatic increase in entitlement spending, which has increased as a share of government spending and relative to GDP while defense spending actually declined relative to GDP through 1998. You can say the amounts are the same but assuming cause is where the text is in error. You can quote the source directly (use their words please) saying this if you want, but it is not factually accurate. One could argue Medicare, Medicaid or welfare are the cause too. Social Security is definitely not a cause, as it is funded fully by dedicated tax revenues. Technically, any government program without a dedicated source of funding that fully covered it is a cause of the debt, as is failure to tax sufficiently to keep the annual debt increases at zero.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

::Ahem, I guess a lot of people on Wikipedia need some kind of training school. You see, sources are never wrong. Sounds stupid, but follow this for a minute. If one source says one thing and it is erroneous, there are a number of things that can and do happen.
::#It gets ignored. This is awful, since the author himself may never realize it. And it gets quoted years later, long ignored, and it can be difficult to see the error and correct it or do one of the below things. Imagine a typo from a source that is 2,000 years old that no one notices, until of course, it is printed in the English Wikipedia.
::#It gets corrected by the author, publisher, the author's descendants once he's dead, or by some later editor, or authority (especially for a government report). This can be a problem, especially when an author recants his ideas and yet the community continues to use the old info and attribute the erroneous info to the (now recanted author).
::#It gets refuted by one or more external sources. The problems are quite complicated, because a lot of people will never have the in-depth research for making proper refutations, depending on the complexity of the perceived error. So while controversy might ensue, the source is not "wrong," but instead we say it is refuted by (fill in the blank) ''a reliable, many reliable, some, some specific'' sources.
::#Later refutations can approach what amounts to a paradigm shift in thoughts, relegating the error to a constraint of the original author's world or environment. This has happened to things like [[Newton's laws]], [[eugenics]], religious teachings, and other ideas which may be taught as historical ideas which have been superseded or consolidated into more updated ideas.

::So for example, if I was to indicate what people thought of gravity in the 19th century and backed it up with sources, then the 4th criteria (above) would imply that the sources would spout errors due to historical ideas. THE SOURCE WOULD NOT BE WRONG, but rather superseded by Einstein's theories. None of the possibilities is going to be "The source is wrong" unless it is a parody or mock source, so I will add this one:

:::5. The Source was produced as a parody, a joke, a fiction, or a purposely false idea, conspiracy, propaganda, malicious lie that misleads a vast majority of the hidden truth. This has been the case, for example, when [[Frederick Cook]] supposedly went to the [[North Pole]] and [[Bernie Madoff]] when talking about his pyramid scheme. These are very special cases, and the proof for and against a particular statement of a liar can take historians, judges, lawyers, scientists hundreds and thousands of years to decide. So even though [[Herodotus]] is supposedly the "Father of History," his writings are vehemently opposed by people claiming he was merely a propagandist against the Persians, calling him in the same breath "Father of lies," i.e., the Devil himself. Herodotus and Cook are therefore unreliable sources. These sources are still not "wrong" like a math problem can be "wrong." So much for reliable sources!

:: Let me say this about nuclear spending attributable to over 100% of the national debt. There are lots of other ways to add up some numbers and make a comparison to the debt. Like social security, defense spending, etc. The [[Cold War]], however, ended in the 90s, and a lot of people were discussing the costs. (This committee was formed in 1993... [[Gulf War]] and its costs... ring a bell?) Other authors have repeatedly made claims for other contributions to the debt, so perhaps you should quote them? But IMHO, I feel that the many hidden costs of nuclear weapons should shock and cause debate (such as we are having) because it's a little far-fetched to fathom. Eisenhower naively thought that nuclear spending was an economical way to beat the Russians. Hindsight says, "wow," and it serves to reason that the USA dominated the Cold War with a heavy financial toll. That being said, make modifications to what I wrote, by all means, to clarify whether "equals" is tantamount to "equivalent" or "attributable" and this debate becomes one of semantics. [[User:Uruiamme|I like to saw logs!]] ([[User talk:Uruiamme|talk]]) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm fine with comparison (and it is an interesting comparison) as long as we stay away from "cause" type verbiage. Equivalent works well for me.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 23:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

== Public vs. gross debt in "Recent additions to the public debt of the United States" ==

This section refers to public debt but appears to be using gross debt numbers. This should be clarified or corrected. [[User:Rwessel|Rwessel]] ([[User talk:Rwessel|talk]]) 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:No, that usage is probably accurate, the difference between the Public Debt and the Gross Federal Debt is so small, that it is basically considered negligible
:Here is the mathematical relationship between these terms:
::(Gross Federal Debt) = (Debt Held by the Public) + (Intragovernmental Holdings) = (Public Debt) + (Debt of Government Agencies)
::(Public Debt) = (Debt Held by the Public) + (Intragovernmental Holdings) - (Debt of Government Agencies)
::(Debt of Government Agencies) = (Gross Federal Debt) - (Public Debt)
:Hope this helps.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::Errr... At this point the gross debt is about 4.5 trillion larger than the public debt. See columns two and five of the table titled "National debt for selected years" in this article. And the "Recent additions to the public debt of the United States" appears to be using the gross debt numbers ($13.5T for 2010), while being titled "public debt" (which I'd expect to $9T). [[User:Rwessel|Rwessel]] ([[User talk:Rwessel|talk]]) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::"Public Debt" is not the same thing as "Debt Held by the Public" a lot of people confuse the two.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::A good example is on page 51 of [http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2010_4.pdf "this U. S. Treasury Publication], they lay it all out in a nice organized way. To illustrate the example:
:::For 2006:

:::Total Federal Securities (Gross Federal Debt) = $8,530,366,000,000
:::Total Public Debt Securities (Public Debt) = $8,506,974,000,000
:::Total Public Debt Securities Held by U. S. Government Accounts (Intra-governmental Holdings) = $3,663,773,000,000

:::They don't have a total for Debt Held by the Public in this example, but it would be the sum of:
:::(6) Public issues held by Federal Reserve banks + (7) Public Debt Securities held by Private Investors + (11) Agency Securities Held by Private Investors =
::: (Debt Held by the Public) = $4,866,593,000,000 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Csdidier|contribs]]) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::Frankly "public debt" is technically ambiguous if not qualified with "net" or "gross" (see first few sentences of article) but most commonly when unqualified it means net public debt, and "gross debt" means gross public debt. Consider the first graph in the article (as well as several other tables). [[User:Rwessel|Rwessel]] ([[User talk:Rwessel|talk]]) 21:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::Yes, let us look at the first few sentences of the article. It says 'Debt Held by the Public (net public debt)', now you will never see the term (net public debt) on any U. S. Treasury document, or on any GAO document, because the term doesn't exist. Someone made that up and posted it on Wikipedia, but that has nothing to do with the U. S. Treasury, or the Federal Government and the way they operate, because they don't use that language. If I was wrong, it would very easy to find a U. S. Treasury publication that uses the term (net public debt) but you won't find one. You will see 'Debt Held by the Public', that is a term clearly defined by the Treasury, and the GAO. Yes I've seen the first graph, the author used the term "public debt" and "gross debt", when it should be labelled "Debt Held by the Public", and "Gross Federal Debt".[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::Which leave me back at my original point - this needs to be clarified, presumably by fixing the relevant text throughout the article to use the correct, and consistent, terminology. [[User:Rwessel|Rwessel]] ([[User talk:Rwessel|talk]]) 05:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Broken links ==
I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly, but I noticed that reference 19 links to a page that no longer exists (404 error): http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets/hist01z1.xls
[[User:Tgillet1|Tgillet1]] ([[User talk:Tgillet1|talk]]) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

== Needs an update ==
In the section "Understanding_on-budget_and_off-budget_deficits", the statement is made " The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year [21] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year." However, the link provided only goes to the year 1999. My understanding is that there was an on budget surplus the following two years (as stated in the preceding paragraph), invalidating the statement. It may still be of interested that prior to 1999 the previous on budget surplus was in 1957, but the current text creates confusion, particularly when viewed against the statement in the previous paragraph that "Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000..."
[[User:Tgillet1|Tgillet1]] ([[User talk:Tgillet1|talk]]) 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:That's a good question, I'd be very curious to know . . . . I guess you would need to look at the historical tables published by the OMB.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 02:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Billion vs Trillion ==

An IP is changing the wording from "billion" to "trillion" using what appears to be a mistaken review of the sources. The [http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2010.pdf source] says (using 2010 as an example) "As of September 30, 2010 and 2009, federal debt managed by BPD totaled
about $13,551 billion and $11,898 billion, respectively." This is being used in the article as a note for the graph in the history section as "Audited figure was about "13,551 billion" ", which matches the source. I'm hoping the IP will discuss here before reverting again. <b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font> 23:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:It struck me that the editor might be used to the common European convention which uses a comma as a decimal point, and sometimes the period as a group separator (spaces and hashmarks or apostrophes are also used for group separators). [[WP:ORDINAL]] does specify the U.S. convention (period for decimal point, comma for group separators). [[User:Rwessel|Rwessel]] ([[User talk:Rwessel|talk]]) 00:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:: I had that thought as well, so I asked the IP on their talk page to comment here. The IP does geolocate to Seattle, WA though. <b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font> 00:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

== U.S. Debt limit? ==

I don't see where in the article, nor in Wikipedia more generally, the U.S. "debt limit" is discussed. My understanding is that this is the big political issue that requires Congressional action and Presidential signature from time to time. Can anyone help point the average Wikipedia reader to where this subject is discussed? Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

:It is discussed briefly here, in section 2.5, [[United_States_public_debt#Debt_ceiling|Debt ceiling]]. I think a change in name would be appropriate, however. "Debt ceiling" is neither the common current usage nor the name of the section of U.S. law that establishes it (Title 31, Section 3101, "Public debt limit"). [[User:Rwessel|Rwessel]] ([[User talk:Rwessel|talk]]) 05:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for the link. I sure could not find that despite being an experienced editor and pretty decent researcher. I will create a redir page for ''U.S. debt limit'' in the meantime.

::As for your idea to rename the article, I would support that. If someone ever gets to a formal proposal on it, let me know and I'll be happy to come back and weigh in with my rationale. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 23:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

== Appeal for Organization ==
This article has some great info, but it is terribly organized and diffuclt to navigate. The graphs and visual information are helpful but clash with other visuals and seem haphazardly thrown around the text. A good OVERVIEW section is desperately needed for those who just want a short basic understanding, while the detailed sections later need to be more readable, perhaps by making the flow along the lines of moving from less to more detail as the article progresses...e.g., the sudden section on Understanding Off-Budget and On-Budget debt may be useful but it is way too early in the article and quickly announces the '''lost-in-the-detail''' impression of this article. PLEASE, someone with organization skills do us a favor and clean it up, make it flow easier and more logically. (apologies, I would do it myself if I knew how to do anything besides write text) [[User:Leidseplein|Leidseplein]] ([[User talk:Leidseplein|talk]]) 04:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

::I took a shot at it, moving some of the big tables into appendices to help the flow and organizing the topics a bit differently. I have not removed much text, except some distracting political commentary at the start.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== More info please: Intragovernmental Holdings, is this even debt? ==
Intragovernmental holdings make up half the debt, but there is very little detail about it. Is this even debt? Isn't it more like a placeholder - arguably to remind everyone of the obligations to future generations of social security benefits, ''as the Social security law is currently written????'' Do other governments consider such debt owed only to itself and owned only by itself as public debt? Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically whats happened here (should be pointed out in the article?) is that the social security payroll taxes have been used by other parts of the government and the government has put IOUs in the social security trust fund? In other words, the government under-collected general taxes but over collected social security taxes and used the income from social security tax to pay for other parts of the government....right???

It seems to me the US could decide tomorrow to phase out social security as we know it, perhaps replace it with enhanced 401k incentives or whateer, and that eliminating the future social security payments would thereby eliminate half the debt of the US...

:I highly doubt this scenario. My grandfather, and everybody else's grandfather and grandmother worked hard and earned real cash. 6.2% of that hard cash went to the Social Security Administration, who took the excess and deposited it into the OASDI Trust Fund in the form of Special Issue Treasury Bonds, which is the most solid form of currency the Federal Government has to offer. Cash doesn't earn interest. Now after all of our grandfather's, grandmother's, father's, mother's, and our hard work, the OASDI Trust Fund has accumulated 2.6 trillion dollars in Special Issue Treasury Bonds. Do you really think the Federal Gov't is going to step in now and default on those Treasury Bonds? Do you really think the intelligent portion of the American Public will allow that to happen? You hear about dictator's in third world countries illegally seizing funds in large bank accounts in their country, but I highly doubt that something like that would happen in the United States.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I just thin it bears pointing out, in a big way, that half the public debt of America isn't really like 'normal' debt, it is debt owned by or to Americans themselves, and is really kind of a placeholder to remind everyone of the need to address future social security obligations in some way (repaying the debt) or another (phasing out social security).... Does anyone else see my point here, that, arguably, the US public debt is only about half as big as advertised, especially if other countries don't count future social security benefits as public debt???
[[User:Leidseplein|Leidseplein]] ([[User talk:Leidseplein|talk]]) 04:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:I hear this theme quite a bit . . . people often refer to the OASDI holdings as IOUs instead of using the proper term which would be Special Issue United States Treasury Bonds. The intent is quite obvious: to use improper terms to create the impression that the OASDI Trust Fund holdings have no value.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:The philosophical argument usually continues by describing the holdings as non-cash, which is again intended to create the impression that the holdings have no value. This is amusing because cash, let's use a 100 dollar bill as an example, is nothing more than a piece of paper issued by the federal government. There are no real assets, it is just an IOU if you want to get philosophical about it. There is no difference between a 100 dollar bill, and a 100 dollar U. S. Treasury Bond, in that they are both pieces of paper issued by the Federal Government. They both actually have value because they are backed by the Federal Gov't and we have a centuries old system in place where these pieces of paper get exchanged back and forth and can be traded in for goods and services. The truth of the matter is this: Of all the pieces of paper the Federal Government has to offer, the type held in the OASDI Trust Fund is the best you can get. The U. S. Treasury will occasionally hold an auction and offer this type to the Private Sector, and when they do, they go real fast.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Another false argument is to describe the OASDI Trust Fund as "Money the Federal Government owes to itself". This is a deception, because that money doesn't belong to the Federal Government. That money belongs to anyone who has contributed to that fund. We all own a stake in it collectively. This is why it is called an entitlement, which means ownership. The government administers the funds, but if we are not pleased with what they are doing with our money, we are supposed to take advantage of our representative government and make them do as we wish. So it is not money the Federal Government owes to itself . . . it is money the Federal Government owes to me and anyone else who is a joint stake-holder of that fund.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Anyway, this is a recent philosophical debate (recent as in the last 10 years), and it is quite interesting. I wonder if this discussion belongs on the Social Security Wikipedia page instead of the U S public debt page.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::I don't have a view on where the philosophical discussion belongs, but I do think that both sides of the ''Total Public Debt Outstanding''—both the ''Debt held by the public'' and the ''Intragovernmental holdings''—ought to be represented, per the actual sourced information on how the Federal government itself considers it, in the Wikipedia article on the U.S. public debt. The government, both the political side and the administrative bureaucracy, say that the money borrowed from the OASD Trust Fund must be paid back. And that is current law. Of course the political folk could change the rules of the game, but Wikipedia's job is to encyclopedically represent the current [[WP:V|verifiable]] information on the point, not to speculate on (likely or unlikely) future changes. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 03:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Unless Social Security is overhauled (highly unlikely) the government will have to borrow to fund the shortfall in Social Security. This means that "real" debt held by the public will be replacing the "intragovernmental debt" between now and about 2035, when the Trust fund is exhausted. So it is real debt...if we honor the Social Security obligations between now and 2035, which is very likely.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

== Various Rants ==

<UL>
<LI>I have trouble with this sentence in the article:

{{quotation|'Within the remainder of this article the phrase "Public Debt" is employed as a shorthand for "Debt Held by the Public"'}}

::This is just plain Wrong!

::"Public Debt" is a term with a very clear meaning which is very distinct from "Debt Held by the Public".

::I refer you to the [http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/markets/national-debt.shtml U.S. Treasury Website] for these distinct definitions.

::Using one of these terms as shorthand for the other is blatant obfuscation.

::The term "Debt held by the Public" did not exist before January 31, 2001. It first appeared out of nowhere in the U.S. Treasury Monthly Report on the Public Debt issued January 31, 2001 . . . which so happens to be the first month George ...W. Bush held office. You can verify this [http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm here]. It is a very poor choice of words, because it creates a situation where the sub-category "Debt held by the Public" sounds deceivingly like the super-category "Public Debt".[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
</LI>
<BR>
<BR>
<LI>Regarding this sentence
{{quotation|"The United States public debt is presented by the United States Treasury as two calculations: "Debt Held by the Public", defined as U.S. Treasury securities held by institutions outside the United States Government, and the "Gross Debt,"}}


I emailed Carmen Reinhart about this question specifically and asked which one it is that they meant. She replied that it is gross debt, not public debt(or net debt).
::This is not true . . . whoever wrote this did not look at the U.S. Treasury Monthly Reports on the Public Debt of the United States which is published by the Bureau of the Public Debt.


Our exchange:
::Where does this term "Gross Debt" come from? This is not the same as "Gross Federal Debt" that you can read about on [http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/markets/national-debt.shtml U.S. Treasury Website] is it? The term does not appear on the U.S. Treasury Monthly Reports on the Public Debt of the United States, so where does this term come from?[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
</LI>
<BR>
<BR>
<LI>Regarding this sentence:
{{quotation|'The terms of "Debt Held by the Public" and "Total Public Debt Outstanding" are often used interchangeably, with much contention as to which is the true measure of government debt'}}


Hello,
::Advice:
I just wonder about the 90 % threshold of public debt which usually induces a GDP growth slowdown.
In the latest working paper from April this is defined as 'public debt'. Correct me if I am wrong, but the net public debt is around 68 % for the U.S.(and forecasted to rise to about mid-70s within a year or two and then stabilize).
However, America's gross debt is now over 100 %.
Which measure should be used? And can gross debt be used too for this? The term used in the working paper from April was 'public debt' - not net public debt.
I would be very happy if there was some kind of clarification on this as googling have not made me wiser!


_______________________________________________________________________________
::If someone tells you that they have their own definition of "Public Debt" and that their definition is right and the U. S. Treasury's definition is wrong . . . just walk away . . . and then there is no contention. . . . don't make eye contact.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
<BR>
<BR><LI>Regarding This Section:


Yes it is gross debt, which for the US is above the 90% threshold. This is the longest time series beginning in 1790.
{{quotation|<B>Unfunded Obligations</B><BR><BR>
It is central (federal government), so it does not include state debt and government sponsored enterprises, which now include the two mortgage giants
best
Carmen
Carmen M. Reinhart
Dennis Weatherstone Senior Fellow
Peterson Institute for International Economics
1750 Massachussetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20036-1903
tel. 202-454-1325
fax. 202-659-3225
creinhart@piie.com
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~creinhar/
www.carmenreinhart.com
_______________________________________


== Wrong numbers in foreign/domestic debt ratio ==
The U.S. government is committed under current law to mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The GAO projects that payouts for these programs will significantly exceed tax revenues over the next 75 years. The Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) payouts already exceed program tax revenues and Social Security payroll taxes fully cover payouts only until 2017. These deficits require funding from other tax sources or borrowing.[52]}}
</LI>


This article from gao.gov: http://gao.gov/assets/650/649848.pdf , states that about 5 % of the debt is from foreign investors, on Page 18.
<UL><UL>
But the wikipedia article says around 40%. The sources to this page are from the banks of the lending countries, and I would say that the US have more credible numbers, than China and Taiwan.
<LI>no mention that each of these Government Insurance Programs have large trust funds?</LI>
<LI>this section repeats (in more depth) what is said in previous section . . . merge?</LI>
<LI><strike>should clarify that these are NOT Federal Funds</strike> (new info->invalid point)</LI>
<LI><strike>the federal government is not mandated to pay anything.<strike>(new info->invalid point)</LI>
<LI><strike>the U. S. Treasury (a Federal Department) is only required to redeem the U. S. Treasury Bonds it has issued to these trust funds.</strike>(new info->invalid point)</LI>
<LI>explain how redeeming these Treasury Bonds, will put an extra strain on the Federal Budget.</LI>
<LI>the Social Security - Old Age Survivor Insurance trust fund ($2.34 trillion) expected to last until 2040 (2037 if pooled with Disability Insurance trust fund).</LI>
<LI>perhaps a sentence connecting this issue to the Intra-Governmental Holdings portion of the public debt</LI>
<LI>the reference link (65) is broken, so you can not verify the numbers.</LI>
</UL></UL>
<BR>
<BR>
<LI>OMG! This is worse than I thought . . . I'm finding mistakes in the references . . . Regarding the quote from reference [http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3197 94]:


It's best to make that amount a cross reference. It is too hard for Wikipedians to update changing numbers in multiple places.
{{quotation|Debt held by the public is important because it reflects the extent to which the government goes into private credit markets to borrow. Such borrowing draws on private national saving and international saving, and therefore competes with investment in the nongovernmental sector (for factories and equipment, research and development, housing, and so forth). Large increases in such borrowing can also push up interest rates and increase the amount of future interest payments the federal government must make to lenders outside of the United States, which reduces Americans’ income. By contrast, intragovermental debt (the other component of the gross debt) has no such effects because it is simply money the federal government owes (and pays interest on) to itself.}}
40% is about right in 2013.


== Introduction Text ==
::The sentence "intragovernmental debt (the other component of the gross debt) has no such effects because it is simply money the federal government owes (and pays interest on) to itself." is <B>INCORRECT - YOU FAIL!!</B>!


Hey, I do not know a better word, but in the first paragraph right on the start of the article (paragraph? really? dictionary is stupid or?!) at the end there is written:
::The sentence "intragovernmental debt (the other component of the gross debt) has no such effects because it is simply money the federal government owes (and pays interest on) to <B>NON-FEDERAL</B> government agencies." would be <B>CORRECT</B>.


''On June 30, 2015, debt held by the public was $13.08 trillion or about 74% of the previous 12 months of GDP.''
::What is funny about this quote is that they explain that <B>Debt Held by the Public</B> is credit from the Private Sector . . . Public = Private . . . and Private = Public.


This is the "public debt", but we are in the National Debt article, this sentence is very... confusing for persons who have no idea what is public and what is national debt. The public debt at the Date was I would say already far over 18 trillion dollar and over 100% of the GDP. Right now we have national debt to GDP ratio according to the US Debt Clock: 103.9855% GDP debt (means whole US economy, everything what is produced, done, consumed and so on in a whole year would not be enough to pay off the debt, if the state would "shutdown", no lights, no electricity on the street, nothing, if every cent would go to debt for a whole year... If the US would be a European Country with the common problems of South-Eastern European States (Most of these are today seperated states which were created after the Balkan War, which the younger people, okay I'm young too, lets say people under 20 years old can not remember anything of any news reports or so about the Balkan War and the European and US intervention (back than the World was okay, China became oil net importer in 1993, Soviet Union just had fallen down after it carried the whole almost puppet-states, with the East-German being the best (I talked to my mother, born in Poland, and I have some family still living in today very west Poland, meaning less than 100 kilometers air distance to the German Border (which is unguarded since January or May 2004, I think May 2004, "clicks", is it military or do you really can say it to a civilian?!) problem: there is no direct route to the Border, since the border is the "Odra" (river) you have to drive north, away from us (air distance) and than in the former "Frankfurt (an der Oder)" (Frankfurt (on the Odra) to seperate from the 10-times larger city of Frankfurt in West-Germany with the highest financial buildings and I think there is the main German stock, like the NYMEX in New York, DAX it is called...
::This is a tricky situation . . . where a reference makes a big big big mistake. . . . hmmmmmmmmm.
</LI>
[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


anyway I think the US CAN do it and handle it somehow without an deflation, which often occurs before the real inflation begins, and with a very large inflation ("Hyperinflation"), in this case the debt would be away without doing anything further, but it will not happen to the us dollar, the Zimbabwe-Dollar had numbers which I can not translate (since 1 billion in English is 1 "Milliarde" in German for example), it was something with 15 or 16 numbers, first two where 92 and I think followed by 12 or 14 zeros... this was the rate in PER CENT (!). It was the heaviest Inflation known or in "newer history", would be the easiest way for the US Goverment, but it would also make the rich people poor.
</UL>
:I'm not sure I agree. As defined (by you?) above, '''Intra-governmental Holdings''' is, "the portion of the '''Public Debt''' that is held by U. S. Government entities." This suggests that they have the sentence you selected dead on. Now their economic analysis leaves something to be desired, but that is another story.[[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


See here I found it:
::The distinction is in the word "Federal". "Federal" and "Government" are not the same word, If it was the federal government paying money to itself, it would show up as both a credit and a debit on the end of the year Federal Budget Accounting. But it is the federal government paying money to non-federal accounts . . . outside of the Federal Budget. It is important to distinguish between Federal Funds and Non-Federal Funds. When Congress and the Prez bang out the Federal Budget . . . this only pertains to the federal funds. I don't think the Prez has any say over Non-Federal Funds, just Congress, but I have to look that up . . . don't quote me on that. It is important to note that the debt is a "Federal Debt".


''During the height of inflation from 2008 to 2009, it was difficult to measure Zimbabwe's hyperinflation because the government of Zimbabwe stopped filing official inflation statistics. However, Zimbabwe's peak month of inflation is estimated at 79.6 billion percent in mid-November 2008.''
::You are correct in that if they had used the word "U. S. Government" they would be spot on, but they used the word "Federal Government" and so I'm being a stickler, raising a flag, technically they are wrong.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 17:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


''In 2009, Zimbabwe stopped printing its currency, with currencies from other countries being used
:::I think you are confused. There is only one US Government, it is ''the'' US Government. When the US government wants to talk about other levels of government in the US, it says explicitly the level that it is talking about (i.e. loans to state, county, and city governments would have been used if you were correct). But maybe I'm wrong, can you find a citation that agrees with you? [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Over the course of the five-year span of hyperinflation, the inflation rate fluctuated greatly. At one point, the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe predicted that it would reach 1.5 million percent. In June 2008 the annual rate of price growth was 11.2 million percent. The worst of the inflation occurred in 2008, leading to the abandonment of the currency.'' '''The peak month of hyperinflation occurred in mid-November 2008 with a rate estimated at 79,600,000,000% per month. This resulted in US$1 becoming equivalent to the staggering sum of $Z2,621,984,228,675,650,147,435,579,309,984,228'''


== "COVID-19 pandemic and 2021 spendings" sub-heading ==
::::You are right, I was confused . . . there is only one US Federal Government. So the money goes "off-budget" but it is still Federal? That's bizarre. I have read phrases like "Supplemental Security Insurance benefits are paid for with Federal Funds, unlike Social Security retirement benefits which are paid for with Social Security funds," and I've always thought there was a distinction. It looks like you and they are right, however . . . I'll look into this over the weekend.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


Other than the spelling error ('spendings' instead of 'spending,' maybe non-native English or bot submission?), the article referenced as evidence has been updated & also doesn't support the statements present (references May report not included in article released in April and updated in June, numerical totals of expected spending are different). This isn't adding anything meaningful & doesn't promote any embellishment like a stub would. This sub-heading should be removed or reworked as a symbolic link to a separate wiki entry specifically covering the 2020 & 2021 pandemic related spending by the U.S.A.
::::I stand corrected . . . The U. S. Treasury lists Intragovernment Interest as the Federal Government paying interest to itself:
::::[[Image:Budgetstatement.jpg]]


== Chart out of date ==
::::The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Management_and_Budget Office of Management and Budget] does not include all of this in its calculation of the Federal Budget . . . the [http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html SSA Historian's Office] explains why:


The chart, here, [[National debt of the United States#/media/File:U.S. Federal Net Interest as Pct GDP.png]], is about 10 years old and may be easily misunderstood to be current. Recommend deletion. [[User:D wigglesworth|D wigglesworth]] ([[User talk:D wigglesworth|talk]]) 03:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::::{{quotation| . . . in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 the law was changed to stop the use of the Trust Funds for any function in the unified budget, including calculations of the deficit. One sub-part of OBRA 1990 was called the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), and it was this sub-part that specified this change in the law.<br /><br />The BEA budget treatment of Social Security basically remains the law to the present day. Specifically, present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget. (The Medicare Trust Funds, by contrast, are once again part of the unified budget.) So where matters stand presently is that the transactions to the Social Security Trust Funds and the operations of the Postal Service are "off-budget" and everything else is "on-budget."<br /><br />However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is.}}


It can be found in this section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Interest_and_debt_service_costs <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:D wigglesworth|D wigglesworth]] ([[User talk:D wigglesworth#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/D wigglesworth|contribs]]) 03:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::but again the U. S. Treasury shows it as "simply money the federal government owes (and pays interest on) to itself." which is good enough for me.[[User:Csdidier|Csdidier]] ([[User talk:Csdidier|talk]]) 19:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:01, 21 April 2024

Former good article nomineeNational debt of the United States was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 6, 2011.

Carmen & Rogoff debt-to-GDP threshold at 90 % is gross debt NOT public debt[edit]

I emailed Carmen Reinhart about this question specifically and asked which one it is that they meant. She replied that it is gross debt, not public debt(or net debt).

Our exchange:

Hello,

I just wonder about the 90 % threshold of public debt which usually induces a GDP growth slowdown.

In the latest working paper from April this is defined as 'public debt'. Correct me if I am wrong, but the net public debt is around 68 % for the U.S.(and forecasted to rise to about mid-70s within a year or two and then stabilize).

However, America's gross debt is now over 100 %.

Which measure should be used? And can gross debt be used too for this? The term used in the working paper from April was 'public debt' - not net public debt.

I would be very happy if there was some kind of clarification on this as googling have not made me wiser!

_______________________________________________________________________________

Yes it is gross debt, which for the US is above the 90% threshold. This is the longest time series beginning in 1790. It is central (federal government), so it does not include state debt and government sponsored enterprises, which now include the two mortgage giants best Carmen

Carmen M. Reinhart Dennis Weatherstone Senior Fellow Peterson Institute for International Economics 1750 Massachussetts Avenue, NW Washington DC 20036-1903 tel. 202-454-1325 fax. 202-659-3225 creinhart@piie.com http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~creinhar/ www.carmenreinhart.com

_______________________________________

Wrong numbers in foreign/domestic debt ratio[edit]

This article from gao.gov: http://gao.gov/assets/650/649848.pdf , states that about 5 % of the debt is from foreign investors, on Page 18. But the wikipedia article says around 40%. The sources to this page are from the banks of the lending countries, and I would say that the US have more credible numbers, than China and Taiwan.

It's best to make that amount a cross reference. It is too hard for Wikipedians to update changing numbers in multiple places. 40% is about right in 2013.

Introduction Text[edit]

Hey, I do not know a better word, but in the first paragraph right on the start of the article (paragraph? really? dictionary is stupid or?!) at the end there is written:

On June 30, 2015, debt held by the public was $13.08 trillion or about 74% of the previous 12 months of GDP.

This is the "public debt", but we are in the National Debt article, this sentence is very... confusing for persons who have no idea what is public and what is national debt. The public debt at the Date was I would say already far over 18 trillion dollar and over 100% of the GDP. Right now we have national debt to GDP ratio according to the US Debt Clock: 103.9855% GDP debt (means whole US economy, everything what is produced, done, consumed and so on in a whole year would not be enough to pay off the debt, if the state would "shutdown", no lights, no electricity on the street, nothing, if every cent would go to debt for a whole year... If the US would be a European Country with the common problems of South-Eastern European States (Most of these are today seperated states which were created after the Balkan War, which the younger people, okay I'm young too, lets say people under 20 years old can not remember anything of any news reports or so about the Balkan War and the European and US intervention (back than the World was okay, China became oil net importer in 1993, Soviet Union just had fallen down after it carried the whole almost puppet-states, with the East-German being the best (I talked to my mother, born in Poland, and I have some family still living in today very west Poland, meaning less than 100 kilometers air distance to the German Border (which is unguarded since January or May 2004, I think May 2004, "clicks", is it military or do you really can say it to a civilian?!) problem: there is no direct route to the Border, since the border is the "Odra" (river) you have to drive north, away from us (air distance) and than in the former "Frankfurt (an der Oder)" (Frankfurt (on the Odra) to seperate from the 10-times larger city of Frankfurt in West-Germany with the highest financial buildings and I think there is the main German stock, like the NYMEX in New York, DAX it is called...

anyway I think the US CAN do it and handle it somehow without an deflation, which often occurs before the real inflation begins, and with a very large inflation ("Hyperinflation"), in this case the debt would be away without doing anything further, but it will not happen to the us dollar, the Zimbabwe-Dollar had numbers which I can not translate (since 1 billion in English is 1 "Milliarde" in German for example), it was something with 15 or 16 numbers, first two where 92 and I think followed by 12 or 14 zeros... this was the rate in PER CENT (!). It was the heaviest Inflation known or in "newer history", would be the easiest way for the US Goverment, but it would also make the rich people poor.

See here I found it:

During the height of inflation from 2008 to 2009, it was difficult to measure Zimbabwe's hyperinflation because the government of Zimbabwe stopped filing official inflation statistics. However, Zimbabwe's peak month of inflation is estimated at 79.6 billion percent in mid-November 2008.

In 2009, Zimbabwe stopped printing its currency, with currencies from other countries being used Over the course of the five-year span of hyperinflation, the inflation rate fluctuated greatly. At one point, the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe predicted that it would reach 1.5 million percent. In June 2008 the annual rate of price growth was 11.2 million percent. The worst of the inflation occurred in 2008, leading to the abandonment of the currency. The peak month of hyperinflation occurred in mid-November 2008 with a rate estimated at 79,600,000,000% per month. This resulted in US$1 becoming equivalent to the staggering sum of $Z2,621,984,228,675,650,147,435,579,309,984,228

"COVID-19 pandemic and 2021 spendings" sub-heading[edit]

Other than the spelling error ('spendings' instead of 'spending,' maybe non-native English or bot submission?), the article referenced as evidence has been updated & also doesn't support the statements present (references May report not included in article released in April and updated in June, numerical totals of expected spending are different). This isn't adding anything meaningful & doesn't promote any embellishment like a stub would. This sub-heading should be removed or reworked as a symbolic link to a separate wiki entry specifically covering the 2020 & 2021 pandemic related spending by the U.S.A.

Chart out of date[edit]

The chart, here, National debt of the United States#/media/File:U.S. Federal Net Interest as Pct GDP.png, is about 10 years old and may be easily misunderstood to be current. Recommend deletion. D wigglesworth (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found in this section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Interest_and_debt_service_costs — Preceding unsigned comment added by D wigglesworth (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_debt_of_the_United_States&oldid=1220039138"