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

Percent held by China

The table "Leading Foreign owners of US Treasury Securities (July 2010)" needs an "all other" category so the numbers add up. The bottom line shows the numbers adding to 100% but in fact they only add to 73% since the table lists only the first 9 of the 35 countries (plus "all others") in the Treasury table. 98.166.249.58 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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. 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

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. 0¹⁸ (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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). Student7 (talk) 18:47, 23 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 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. 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.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? 0¹⁸ (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.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%.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. 0¹⁸ (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 here.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 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".18.4.15.74 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "Intergovernmental Debt" seems to include debt held by the Fed. Then the next thing I see seems to imply that these T-Bills bought by the FED are included in the "Debt Held By the Public". And either way you want to go, you end up with a falsehood. The term "Intergovernmental Dept" is always punctuated with "e.g. the Social Security Trust Fund". This means that there are real live people who expect to be paid. And the only way they can be paid is by taxation or borrowing. But the debt held by the FED is not in any way a debt held by anyone expecting to be paid. Those people who held these instruments have already been paid by the FED using its money creating powers. The FED has all the money it wants, right there at its keyboard. The debt held by the FED NEVER NEEDS TO BE PAID. So it is not like the SS trust fund. The fact is that debt held by the FED is actually a subtraction from the real debt "public debt" or the real "national debt". "quantitative easing" makes the relationship of the deficit and the national debt a lie. If the deficit is financed by the sale of T-Bills and then the FED buys the T-Bills with money from its keyboard then the future obligation of the treasury and the tax payers is extinguished. The _REAL_ debt is removed by FED purchases. Here is a picture of the FED's Balance sheet. The FED has announced that it will be purchasing an additional $600B in the secondary T-Bill market. That is 3/4ths of the $800B stimulus. And we say "Thank You Fed".

BOTTOM LINE -- If government spending does not create inflation, there is no reason to sell T-Bills in the first place.The Trucker (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this section relies too heavily on blockquotes, the referenced sources should probably be summarized instead. 0¹⁸ (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. 18.4.15.74 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.168.254 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI if you use this U. S. Treasury web page as a guide:

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.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. Csdidier (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I don't understand why my edit was reverted, and I don't really understand what the editor meant in his summary line 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. -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.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. 0¹⁸ (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):

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.[1][2][3][4]

• 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 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 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. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 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. 0¹⁸ (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.111.233 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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! 0¹⁸ (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. Geek2003 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at one of your refs [5] and [6] 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. 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the spreadsheet 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. Ravensfire (talk) 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? 0¹⁸ (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.Ravensfire (talk) 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? Ravensfire (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK - I have edited the lines to remove the 2010 information. 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? 0¹⁸ (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.

Phantom in ca (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Public Debt

• I have trouble with this sentence in the article:

  '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 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 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".Csdidier (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)




• Regarding this sentence

  "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.

  Where does this term "Gross Debt" come from? This is not the same as "Gross Federal Debt" that you can read about on 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?Csdidier (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)




• 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'

  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.Csdidier (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  
  
  

• 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. I will supply the proper definitions here:
  
  
  • U. S. Treasury Vocabulary:
  Public Debt - 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 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.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 outstanding¹. 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 Debt¹. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csdidier (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Gross Federal Debt - The Public Debt plus the guaranteed debt of government agencies other than the Treasury². Intra-governmental Holdings - The portion of the Gross Federal Debt that is held by U. S. Government entities. Debt Held by the Public - The portion of the Gross Federal Debt held by entites that are not part of the U. S. Government. 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"².

  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]] (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  
  
  • Terms Not Defined by the U. S. Treasury:
  National Debt - 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 Public Debt when referring to the U. S. National Debt. Government Debt - 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). Federal Debt - A term which is synonymous with either the Gross Federal Debt, or the Public Debt. This dual definition is justified by the assumption that the difference between these two figures is negligible. (federal debt was formally defined by the Treasury in 1973) Gross Debt - It seems that previous editors were using this term to refer to the total Public Debt outstanding. This usage is in accordance with non-governmental budget policy advisory groups such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
  
  
  • Regarding This Section:

    Unfunded Obligations
    
    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]

  • no mention that each of these Government Insurance Programs have large trust funds?
  • this section repeats (in more depth) what is said in previous section . . . merge?
  • should clarify that these are NOT Federal Funds (new info->invalid point)
  • the federal government is not mandated to pay anything.(new info->invalid point)
  • the U. S. Treasury (a Federal Department) is only required to redeem the U. S. Treasury Bonds it has issued to these trust funds.(new info->invalid point)
  • explain how redeeming these Treasury Bonds, will put an extra strain on the Federal Budget.
  • 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).
  • perhaps a sentence connecting this issue to the Intra-Governmental Holdings portion of the public debt
  • the reference link (65) is broken, so you can not verify the numbers.

  
  
  

  • OMG! This is worse than I thought . . . I'm finding mistakes in the references . . . Regarding the quote from reference 94:

    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.

    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 INCORRECT - YOU FAIL!!!

    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 NON-FEDERAL government agencies." would be CORRECT.

    What is funny about this quote is that they explain that Debt Held by the Public is credit from the Private Sector . . . Public = Private . . . and Private = Public.

    This is a tricky situation . . . where a reference makes a big big big mistake. . . . hmmmmmmmmm.

  Csdidier (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  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.0¹⁸ (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  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".

  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.Csdidier (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  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? 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  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.Csdidier (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  I stand corrected . . . The U. S. Treasury lists Intragovernment Interest as the Federal Government paying interest to itself:

  

  The Office of Management and Budget does not include all of this in its calculation of the Federal Budget . . . the SSA Historian's Office explains why:

  . . . 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.
  
  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."
  
  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.

  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.Csdidier (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2010 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.134.245 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.67.226 (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Request for expanded section on debt ceiling

  It seems likely that raising the debt ceiling may become an issue this winter. (As opposed to just the usual sabre rattling.) This page is likely to get readers looking for info. Any chance of someone expanding the debt ceiling section? Specifically, the implications of raising or not raising the ceiling. Nosimplehiway (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  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! 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. Ravensfire (talk) 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. . . . Csdidier (talk) 02:39, 19 January 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

  Again, thanks Csdidier (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  nuclear weapons

  I'm undoing this edit. It looks like 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.) CRETOG8(t/c) 03:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with you Cretog8.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 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. I like to saw logs! (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.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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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. I like to saw logs! (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.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. Rwessel (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)