[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
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:National debt of the United States/Archive 3) (bot
 
(378 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}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Article history
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|action1=GAN
|counter = 2
|action1date=12:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
|algo = old(180d)
|action1result=not listed
|archive = Talk:United States public debt/Archive %(counter)d
|action1oldid=291850232
|currentstatus=FGAN
|itn1date=6 August 2011
}}
}}


{{American English}}
{{WikiProject Economics
|class = B
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
|importance = mid
{{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
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy
|counter = 3
|class = <!-- a class specified here overrides the automatic rating based on the numerical scores -->
|algo = old(100d)
|importance = <!-- this works just like the usual WikiProject importance ratings -->
|archive = Talk:National debt of the United States/Archive %(counter)d
|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}}
{| class="infobox" width="150"
|- align="center"
| [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]
'''[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]'''
----
|- align="center"
| [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
| [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
|}

== References hyperlinks are all raw html/broken ==

On Dec 1,2007, the references section hyperlinks are not displaying properly. <strike>All the raw html is showing and no links. Tried to go in an edit to see what might be wrong, but it was not obvious to me.</strike>
I remove an extra <nowiki><references/></nowiki> that was still there in between the Reflist tag and that seemed to fix it.


== Percent held by China ==

Since it wasn't a "primary" source, I didn't want to try to include a statement from my local paper that 17% of foreign-owned US bonds are owned by China. This seems less than anything I have seen before. I realize it is probably growing faster than it is for other countries, but the overall amount did not seem large. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 14:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)



Tagging along with that, in the main USA article there is a reference to Japan surpassing China in how much American debt they hold. But this article still shows that China has more. It is a little contradictory. Here is the reference link on the other article: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2010-02/16/c_13177277.htm
Here is the main US article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Economy

[[Special:Contributions/136.176.97.46|136.176.97.46]] ([[User talk:136.176.97.46|talk]]) 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Ethan

:Uh, xinhua is not a reliable source. The US official statistics are. However, I too recall that being reported, but it seems the official statistics have been updated and it is not the case. Looks like nobody bothered to report that. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 03:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

---I figured this is probably the best place to state that someone keeps putting Taiwan as a Special Administrative Area of the PRC. That's CPC/PRC propaganda. The government of Taiwan is democratically elected and sovereign. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.53.46.140|159.53.46.140]] ([[User talk:159.53.46.140|talk]]) 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:And so indicated in the article [[Taiwan]]. Thanks for pointing that out. (I was wondering what was going on there with all those changes to and fro but wasn't really paying attention). [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

== Breakdown by Congress not President ==

Since the Congress has last word on the budget, is a color plot available that can break down deficit spending by Republican/Democrat control of Congress? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:71.227.105.206|71.227.105.206]] ([[User talk:71.227.105.206|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.227.105.206|contribs]]) 11:11, 1 May 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:That would be another article. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 01:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

:It's not appropriate for "another article". This article is about the public debt and the history of growth. If it's neutral POV to link the growth of public debt to the party in power in the Executive Branch, then it's also neutral POV to link the growth of public debt to the party in power in the Legislative Branch. I've created a color plot from the same data (which has been moved to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist07z1.xls), depicting US Gross Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP, except that the color key identifies the periods that either Democrats (blue) or Republicans (red) controlled both the House and the Senate. Periods in which control was split are purple. I'd insert it immediately below the existing graph plotting debt vs. time and color coded by administration, but I'm not sure where to start. Would someone point me to a "how to" to upload the image? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.74.128.138|173.74.128.138]] ([[User talk:173.74.128.138|talk]]) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Start [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload here], at Wikimedia Commons. -[[User:Shootbamboo|Shootbamboo]] ([[User talk:Shootbamboo|talk]]) 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

== Selective presentation of material ==

I just removed a new addition that seemed somewhat useful if rewritten. In order to make the US "look good" debtwise, the author had cherry picked several debt-ridden developed countries to compare the US with. This is clearly [[WP:BIAS]]. The article is about US debt and not a comparison article per se. Secondly, the US can be inserted into an overall list of all (developed, presumably) countries. That way, the material is not presented in a "cherry picked" manner. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 13:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone does compare the U.S. with Japan, the comparison should point out that Japan has $1 trillion of foreign reserves, which offsets its debt to GDP ratio considerably. By contrast, the U.S. has about $127 billion of foreign reserves. This data is available from the IMF.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

:And traditional debt accounting doesn't include this? Do you have a ref for that? [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 18:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::Here are some links to the data on the reserves. I don't know how the CIA Factbook and others handle the reserves/assets that might offset the debt to GDP ratio calculation for other countries. In other words, is it net debt or gross debt? Anyone an economist that knows this? I'll look into it further.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 23:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::*[http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/jpn/eng/curjpn.htm IMF-Japan's Reserves $1,042B]
::*[http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/usa/eng/curusa.htm IMF-U.S. Reserves $127B]

Student7, what you call cherry picking is finding comparisons. Now, I think you could argue that secondary sources are not making these comparisons, but not that they aren't valid comparisons to make. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 02:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Actually making comparisons is sometimes, maybe often, [[WP:OR]]. If in a bio about me, I write "I am bigger than you are" out of nowhere, I am trying to make '''some''' point - e.g. that I am bigger than somebody! This however, does not really "prove" anything and is really polemical and beside the point. If instead, I say, that compared to the average whatevers, I rank in the x percentile by height/weight/eye color, then maybe I have said something that might be useful to somebody. The point is, the article is about '''me''', not you. Introducing "you" into the article is merely confusing and irrelevant to the user. Selective comparisons is almost always [[WP:OR]], [[WP:BIAS]], and [[WP:POV]]. Why is it even necessary BTW. Why is it important to make the US "look good" here. Why can't it be compared objectively. Why must the article have a [[WP:POV]]? If you haven't at least glanced at some of these "WP" references, you might do so. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 15:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Look. You can't have it both ways. Either change the sentence or accept the correct labeling of it. Have you looked at any of these WP references? [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 18:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Student7, I have heard more than one Ph.D. economists make this point, so I'll bet it appears in a good secondary source. Instead of arguing about the definition of OR, why not just look for that secondary source. It will probably have a good explanation of how one should think about these comparisons too. If I'm wrong and these sources do not exist, lets remove the bullet. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 01:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Here is an article on the topic [http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/is-rising-u-s-debt-inviting-trouble-ask-japan/19469343/]. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 01:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::::The problem is not reliability. Accuracy has never been the problem. The problem is [[WP:TOPIC]]. It is off-[[WP:TOPIC]] to explain (for example) in an article about Jimmy Carter, that he did x, while George Washington never even considered x. This is off-topic for that article. If an article were defined "Comparing the Carter administration with the Washington administration" it would be quite proper. Or comparing all the US presidents, maybe. Even that has limits. I couldn't then say that "Carter did y, while George III did the opposite." That would be beyond that article's topic.

::::Yes, there are plenty of references. The media is always ready to give a hand with bias, aren't they? That is what we are supposed to weed out when we insert encyclopedic information here.

::::The idea is to have boundaries for articles, so they don't just go wandering off. There is no sentence about the US in this article that can't be compared to some other country. Would you want an article full of "comparisons" on each sentence about the US?

::::"The US spent x% in 2002 on defense while Gambia only spent y%." Nevermind that I have reliable references for this coming out my ears!

::::Let's stay on topic! Compare with all countries here or none. Don't cherry pick. That is bias. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 11:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Understanding the Intragovernment Debt / Debate about Whether it is "Real debt" ==

The following paragraph was removed:
"However, one counterargument is that between the present and 2036, the [[Social Security debate (United States)|Social Security Trust Fund]] will require the government to borrow $2.4 trillion from the credit markets (in the absence of significant budget surpluses), increasing the debt held by the public as it retires that portion of the intragovernmental debt.<ref>[http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/II_highlights.html#76460 Social Security Trustees Report 2009-Summary]</ref> Other pension programs will have similar effects. In other words, the intragovernmental debt will be replaced by debt held by the public. These amounts are owed to Social Security recipients and other government pensioners, who will not relinquish these payments easily. Under this view, the distinction between debt held by the public and intragovernmental debt is essentially irrelevant."

:I agree we could use some better sources for this, although the argument is spot-on. Deficits in the Social Security program over the next 25 years will require enormous Treasury security issuance as the Social Security Trust fund begins to claim general fund revenues to cover the $2.4 trillion trust fund claim. Each dollar of general revenues claimed for Social Security will add to the debt held by the public, as we expect to run large deficits for the foreseeable future. The "intragovernmental" debt represented by the Social Security Trust Fund will be essentially converted to debt held by the public unless we dramatically reform the program, affecting those within 25 years of retiring. That ain't gonna happen, as all reform plans exempt those over 55 making it practically impossible to avoid this from occurring. So the distinction between the two debt buckets is really irrelevant. To restate, we will issue about $2.4 trillion of debt held by the public to retire the intragovernmental trust fund balance over the next 25 years. But I cannot find good sources to point that out clearly, even though some economists are advocating using the gross debt figure, as are members of the Reform Commission.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::Farcaster, I guess the point is I don't think you will find a reputable source that agrees with many of the points. Key questions: what is the other pension program? How is this argument different than the sourced one? [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::If Social Security is not reformed, intragovernmental debt is replaced by debt held by the public to the tune of the $2.4 trillion Trust Fund between now and 2036. The Social Security report indicates this when it says general funds will be required to plug program deficits; the meanings are synonymous. As long as we run large overall budget deficits (which everyone expects), every dollar of general fund revenue required to plug Social Security program deficits will both increase debt held by the public and liquidate the intragovernmental debt/trust fund balance. The complexity comes in with reform; there are two scenarios where the intragovernmental debt would not be converted to debt held by the public, both of which are unlikely: 1) Social Security law is changed, bringing payroll taxes dedicated to the program in line with expenditures, avoiding the use of general funds; and 2) The general fund runs a surplus sufficient to cover social security program deficits (about 1% of GDP), so that present general fund tax revenues can cover the program. The first scenario is possible; the second scenario would require a miracle. Does this make more sense now? Without reform, the intragovernmental debt will be swapped for debt held by the public. That is how the Trust Fund works by law if the general fund is in deficit also. Medicare works similarly and has a $380 billion trust fund. I don't know about the others trust funds.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Let's use an example. Let's say Social Security runs a $100 billion program deficit, meaning program expenditures exceed the dedicated Social Security payroll taxes. Under current law, the program shortfall gets plugged by general fund transfers, until the Social Security Trust Fund is liquidated. Since the general fund is running a huge deficit, it doesn't have the money to cover this transfer so it issues new treasury securities to get the money. The debt held by the public goes up, and every dollar that is transferred to Social Security from the general fund brings down the Trust Fund balance. Per the source cited above, this type of trust fund liquidation will occur until 2036 when the Trust fund is exhausted. After that, Social Security has no authority to take general fund revenues and program payouts fall by about 25%.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Farcaster, there are two sides who have spilled ink on this topic, they are presented in the article. Lets stick to what reliable sources say rather than what we might speculate or conclude based on what we see. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 04:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::The term "Public Debt" is a term that has been around for over 200 years, and it has a very well defined meaning, "Intragovernmental Debt" is a sub-category of the "Public Debt" just as "Debt Held by the Public" is a sub-category of the "Public Debt". So I don't see any debate. "Intragovernmental Debt" is a part of the "Public Debt" . . . by definition. Since this is an article about the "Public Debt" we should use these terms accurately and in the same way that the U. S. Treasury uses them. The U. S. Treasury defines these terms [http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/markets/national-debt.shtml here].[[Special:Contributions/18.4.15.74|18.4.15.74]] ([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]]) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:::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".[[Special:Contributions/18.4.15.74|18.4.15.74]] ([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]]) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this section relies too heavily on blockquotes, the referenced sources should probably be summarized instead. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 04:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Understanding the Debt Held by the Public / Debate about Whether it is "Real 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-->

== Whitewash and Strong Political bias in presentation ==

In the history section the bias is glaring : there is no legitimate reason to explicitly mention the debt increase under Reagan, Bush(I) and Bush(II) and avoid mentioning the debt increase that we saw after the 8 years of the Clinton presidency. Also, that section focuses on '''gross debt''' even though the article is explicitly focused on public debt, defined within the article as "Debt Held by the Public". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.213.86.192|69.213.86.192]] ([[User talk:69.213.86.192|talk]]) 11:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Yes, since the article is supposed to focus on public debt, a commentary on presidencies is in order only from a [[WP:RELY]] source and it should include all presidencies within the scope, if appropriate and the relationship of the president to the debt. Ford's attempt to veto spending (for example) was usually overidden. He was helpless and not politically responsible for the increase in debt (for example). But only an unbiased reliable historian can make that assertion! :) There may also be a delay in debt, having nothing to do with the (new) incumbent. That is, the next year's budget is determined by the former president. This should be taken into account as well. If it doesn't, presentation of debt as a "function" of the term of the president is pov IMO. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of politics in here and little substance on the debt. I concur that the rise in the debt in modern times, during Reagan and G.W. Bush is not given much discussion. A little whitewashed and more projecting of what the debt will be is quite idiotic for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not a crystal ball. Look at Bush II's predictions of the deficit in his first year; they were completely wrong. Clean up the predictions and the politics, which clutters an otherwise nice article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.32.166.162|128.32.166.162]] ([[User talk:128.32.166.162|talk]]) 00:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== US Businesses buy government municipalities to insure stock? ==

Is the US debt owned mostly by US businesses that buy government bonds? Do US businesses insure their stock with government bonds? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.99.132.30|66.99.132.30]] ([[User talk:66.99.132.30|talk]]) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Deletion ==

I don't understand why my edit was reverted, and I don't really understand what the editor meant in his summary line [[User:Dwightschrute1010|Dwightschrute1010]] ([[User talk:Dwightschrute1010|talk]]) 19:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
:Well I don't know who reverted you, but I find it a bit silly. Your sentence compares 2009 dollars to dollars in the 1800s and treats them equally, which is economically silly, in my opinion. I'm afraid I will revert your contribution also, sorry. -[[User:Shootbamboo|Shootbamboo]] ([[User talk:Shootbamboo|talk]]) 00:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
::I support Shootbamboo's reversion as well. Do your best to present both sides of the argument. Bush added $5 trillion to the debt during his tenure. Obama has added about $2.6 trillion, but much of this is due to the economy he inherited. Japan has a debt to GDP ratio of 200% after running stimulus for a decade after a similar debacle around 1990. Our economy today is $14 trillion in size, much larger than Reagan and prior. I could go on, but you get the point.[[User:Farcaster|Farcaster]] ([[User talk:Farcaster|talk]]) 04:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
::I think the most important point is that the source was a blog. Now, that blog was on a reputable news site, but it still doesn't get the credit for the quality of the editorial oversight of the magazine itself. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 15:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
There have been a few skirmishes over this, with ''Dwightschrute1010'' adding sources to support his reiterated insertion, only to be rereverted. The most recent insertion was (refs converted to inline links):
{{quotation|A recent study reports that 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.[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404][http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html][http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/][http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/6/8/Obamas-National-Debt-Dwarfs-Bushs-and-Reagans.html]}}
*Source 1 of 4 comes up as a dead link for me. perhaps it's a forum response in a blog, perhaps not -- I don't know. I do see that a [http://www.google.com.ph/search?q=%222.5260+trillion%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a google search for "2.5260 trillion"] finds hits on several blogs.
*Source 2 of 4 is a Wall Street Journal opinion piece which says, in part, "The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined."
*Source 3 of 4 is a Washington Times news piece titled, "CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP" which, though it does speak to the general point, doesn't directly support the article assertion.
*Source 4 of 4 is an opinion piece in usnews.com titled, "Obama's National Debt Dwarfs Bush's and Reagan's", which speaks to the assertion's general point but does not support its specifics.
I think that the assertion would be allowable if it identified source 2 of 4 as an opinion piece and replaced the unsupported 2.5620 trillion figure with an assertion that Obama's $3.6 trillion budget more than doubles the national debt (which that source supports). I would question whether the assertion belongs in the [[WP:LEDE|lead section]], though. It might fit better in the ''Calculating and projecting the debt'' section. It also might be better to not rely on an opinion piece (even an opinion piece in the WSJ) for support but instead say something like "The 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than projected, and will raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020.", citing source 3 of 4 for support. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 02:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

== File:Federal Debt-VS-Taxes.PNG ==

Can we get a source on the lines in [[:File:Federal Debt-VS-Taxes.PNG]]? Specifically, did the top rate already go up? I thought it was just scheduled to go up in 2011. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice looking chart that I'd like to reference. If only it referenced it's sources. Geek2003, please update with sources. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.101.111.233|71.101.111.233]] ([[User talk:71.101.111.233|talk]]) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Because this figure is not verifiable (and apparently wrong), I'm removing it until their is a source. It seems like a good idea for the article, so I hope it can be sourced and included again! [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was swamped doing other research. A simple Google search for tax rates or Federal Debt produces hundreds of hits on the history of our income taxes and Debt, I have included several reference's. [[User:Geek2003|Geek2003]] ([[User talk:Geek2003|talk]]) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, looking at one of your refs [http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html] and [http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html] the top did not increase in 2010, nor is it 40%. Your other two sources don't list a 2010 value that I can see. This is the one year I checked and it is wrong. The graph needs some more detailed verification. Can you please (1) add the data you used to the image page, (2) reference every year or range of years? I'm removing the image until we can verify it since it obviously disagrees with even your provided source. [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

:: I think the spreadsheet [http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=175910,00.html referenced here] would be a good source for the top and bottom tax rates, given it's from the IRS. The data is only through 2008 though, but should be able to find the rates for 09 and 10 on irs.gov fairly quickly. Combine that with the debt numbers, and you're done with minimal sourcing. 5 sources for 3 lines just seems a bit much (realizing I'm suggesting 3 sources for just two lines ...). I was a little uncomfortable with one of the sites used as sources - bargaineering.com At the bottom of ones of the linked articles it mentions that it uses data from a bunch of random sources "and trusty Wikipedia" - sorry, that puts it into the unreliable category for me. <b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font> 00:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I actually would like to see a secondary source for this (or a journal article). The lowest tax bracket is negative (with the EITC), plus, you have to take into account the parole deductions... I think it is more complicated than it is being presented as. Even if you get that, then who says the top bracket and debt should be on the same graph? Is this OR? [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 04:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Hmm, I think your last point may be the most interesting. Do we have anything in the article either relating debt to tax rates? From looking at Geek2003's image, the inference is somewhat clear - as the highest tax bracket trended down, the debt went up. That's probably not something that should be inferred by just an image with nothing in the article (referenced) to even remotely back it up. And let's ignore just about anything else that might have affected things. What might be a bit more interesting (and to me viable) comparison is the average effective tax paid per year for individuals, and see what that looks like. No idea where to pull that number from though.<b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font> 04:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Interesting note - the IRS note that the 86 tax law change altered how AGI was calculated, which affects the average tax rate. Part of me still thinks the graph is a useful addition to the article, but it leaves a lot out (tax collected, budget, etc). Geek2003 - any thoughts from you on this? <b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font> 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
OK - I have edited the lines to remove the 2010 information. [[User:Geek2003|Geek2003]] ([[User talk:Geek2003|talk]]) 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:Geek2003, I think you have to talk about a lot more than that and add references as well as a table to the figure page. But the main question is, why isn't this [[WP:OR]]? [[User:O18|0<sup>18</sup>]] ([[User talk:O18|talk]]) 15:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

== National Debt Public Policy Organizations? ==

I'm sure there are both organizations that support a national debt and ones that oppose it. I think a new section/subsection/whatever listing those organizations would be most helpful to Wiki readers.

[[User:Phantom in ca|Phantom in ca]] ([[User talk:Phantom in ca|talk]]) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
== Definition of Public Debt ==


== Carmen & Rogoff debt-to-GDP threshold at 90 % is gross debt NOT public debt ==
I have trouble with this sentence in the article:


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).
'Within the remainder of this article the phrase "Public Debt" is employed as a shorthand for "Debt Held by the Public"'


Our exchange:
This is just plain Wrong!


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


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


Yes it is gross debt, which for the US is above the 90% threshold. This is the longest time series beginning in 1790.
Using one of these terms as shorthand for the other is blatant obfuscation. I'm not quite sure what should be done about it,
It is central (federal government), so it does not include state debt and government sponsored enterprises, which now include the two mortgage giants
but I'm thinking about it.
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 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". [[Special:Contributions/18.4.15.74|18.4.15.74]] ([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]]) 21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


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.
This sentence:
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.
"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," 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.([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]]) 21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


It's best to make that amount a cross reference. It is too hard for Wikipedians to update changing numbers in multiple places.
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?[[Special:Contributions/18.4.15.74|18.4.15.74]] ([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]]) 21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
40% is about right in 2013.


== Introduction Text ==
Regarding this sentence:
'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'


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:
Advice:
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.


''On June 30, 2015, debt held by the public was $13.08 trillion or about 74% of the previous 12 months of GDP.''
I very much like the style . . . how in the opening paragraph, the terms are defined clearly . . . my only concern is that some of the definitions are wrong. Midway through the article, these terms are emphasized in bold, I prefer that to the quotes which are used in the introduction . . . this style should be made uniform throughout the article. I'm partial to the bold emphasis.([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]]) 21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


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...
U. S. Treasury Vocabulary:


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


See here I found it:
<B>Gross Federal Debt</B> - Debt accrued by the Federal Government in the form of securities issued by all U. S. Government agencies, not just the U. S. Treasury.


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


''In 2009, Zimbabwe stopped printing its currency, with currencies from other countries being used
<B>Debt Held by the Public</B> - The portion of the <B>Public Debt</B> held by entites that are not part of the U. S. Government.
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'''
[[Special:Contributions/18.4.15.74|18.4.15.74]] ([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]])


== "COVID-19 pandemic and 2021 spendings" sub-heading ==


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.
Terms Not Defined by the U. S. Treasury


== Chart out of date ==
<B>National Debt</B> - A term which is often used to refer to either the <B>Public Debt</B> or the <B>Gross Federal Debt</B>.


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)
<B>Government Debt</B> - A term which is sometimes to refer to either the <B>Public Debt</B> or the <B>Gross Federal Debt</B>, but is also sometimes used to refer to Governmental debts which have nothing to do with Treasury Securities or the Public Debt.


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-->
<B>Gross Debt</B> - This author has no freakin' clue on this one . . . The U. S. Treasury doesn't use this term . . . Is it <B>Gross Federal Debt</B> but they took out the Federal? Is it a debt with an unappealing aesthetic? Again, this author is lost . . . someone else will need to field this one.
[[Special:Contributions/18.4.15.74|18.4.15.74]] ([[User talk:18.4.15.74|talk]])

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"