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

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)

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. On second thought, Gross Debt is most probably meant to refer to what the GAO calls the Gross Federal Debt which is the same thing as what the U. S. Treasury defined in 1973 as simply the Federal Debt. This usage is in accordance with non-governmental budget policy advisory groups such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.Csdidier (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  
  
  • 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)

  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)

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

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

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

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

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

  this is what I'm working on:

  http://plugsandwire.com

  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)

  No, that usage is probably accurate, the difference between the Public Debt and the Gross Federal Debt is so small, that it is basically considered negligible

  Here is the mathematical relationship between these terms:

  (Gross Federal Debt) = (Debt Held by the Public) + (Intragovernmental Holdings) = (Public Debt) + (Debt of Government Agencies)

  (Public Debt) = (Debt Held by the Public) + (Intragovernmental Holdings) - (Debt of Government Agencies)

  (Debt of Government Agencies) = (Gross Federal Debt) - (Public Debt)

  Hope this helps.Csdidier (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  Errr... At this point the gross debt is about 4.5 trillion larger than the public debt. See columns two and five of the table titled "National debt for selected years" in this article. And the "Recent additions to the public debt of the United States" appears to be using the gross debt numbers ($13.5T for 2010), while being titled "public debt" (which I'd expect to $9T). Rwessel (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  "Public Debt" is not the same thing as "Debt Held by the Public" a lot of people confuse the two.Csdidier (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Broken links

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

  Needs an update

  In the section "Understanding_on-budget_and_off-budget_deficits", the statement is made " The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year [21] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year." However, the link provided only goes to the year 1999. My understanding is that there was an on budget surplus the following two years (as stated in the preceding paragraph), invalidating the statement. It may still be of interested that prior to 1999 the previous on budget surplus was in 1957, but the current text creates confusion, particularly when viewed against the statement in the previous paragraph that "Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000..." Tgillet1 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Billion vs Trillion

  An IP is changing the wording from "billion" to "trillion" using what appears to be a mistaken review of the sources. The source says (using 2010 as an example) "As of September 30, 2010 and 2009, federal debt managed by BPD totaled about $13,551 billion and $11,898 billion, respectively." This is being used in the article as a note for the graph in the history section as "Audited figure was about "13,551 billion" ", which matches the source. I'm hoping the IP will discuss here before reverting again. Ravensfire (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

  I had that thought as well, so I asked the IP on their talk page to comment here. The IP does geolocate to Seattle, WA though. Ravensfire (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  U.S. Debt limit?

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

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

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

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

  Appeal for Organization

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

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

  More info please: Intragovernmental Holdings, is this even debt?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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