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

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2

References hyperlinks are all raw html/broken

On Dec 1,2007, the references section hyperlinks are not displaying properly. 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. I remove an extra <references/> 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. 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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.105.206 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 May 2010

That would be another article. 0¹⁸ (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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.128.138 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Start here, at Wikimedia Commons. -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. 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.Farcaster (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And traditional debt accounting doesn't include this? Do you have a ref for that? 0¹⁸ (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.Farcaster (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• IMF-Japan's Reserves $1,042B
• 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. 0¹⁸ (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. 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? 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. 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article on the topic [1]. 0¹⁸ (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. 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 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)

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)

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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.213.86.192 (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (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.[2][3][4][5]

• 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 [6] and [7] 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. I'm not quite sure what should be done about it, but I'm thinking about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.4.15.74 (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)