Talk:National debt of the United States
I'd also include an external link to this: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091903J.shtml
Except, it's very misleading, with the context Sloan provides. No one should read these numbers alone without an unfriendly analyst's analysis in the other hand.
It appears that the page U.S. national debt should probably be merged into this one. —Mulad 02:02, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
Euros
Are we sure Saddam Hussein started selling oil for euros in 1998? I thought it was 2000. Euros were only introduced to the market in 1999.
Debt level
I'm looking for a reference to verify this claim in the text, which I challenge.
"The debt of United States is much lower than what it is in many other developed countries, such as Japan and many parts of the western Europe, where the debt is generally over 100% of GDP."
The EU limits its members to deficits of 3% of GDP.
- And the debt to 60% of GDP. - Jerryseinfeld 16:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Next person to edit, please append "near Times Square" to "most famously at the corner of West 43rd Street and Sixth Ave (Avenue of the Americas)," as that address means almost nothing to 99% of Americans, whereas "near Times Square" is much more useful.
Social Security and debt
"There are different ways to lower, or pay off, the national debt. Though, if you consider social security as part of the national debt of the United States then the debt can never be totally paid off."
Is this true? Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program, so I don't see why it requires debt to operate, except in the sense that the government always owes a debt to its employees because paychecks are only issued twice a month. While it's true that the Social Security trust fund is running a surplus now, that won't always be the case. --Paul 20:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
US "trillion"
In the United States, a "trillion" is 10^12, not 10^15, meaning that the debt is only 10 times (not 10,000 times) the amount of currency. See answers.com for confirmation. I edited the start of the article to reflect these changes.
POV issues
there are alot of normative statements in this article. for example: "The economy of Japan could be more worrisome" in the Calculating the debt section.
--GregLoutsenko 20:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Presidential Debt Table
The following has been moved from the article itself. - RedWordSmith 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"Of course since gov't budgets are primarily the responsibility of Congress, not the President, the entire table is a worthless piece of partisan propaganda. Can someone revise the table showing the increase in national debt under Democratic and Republican controlled Congresses?"
Text removed
I've removed this text from the article:
- Far more serious than either of these questions, which involve "only money", is the question of the triple bottom line which is the financial, social and natural debt created by exploiting systems with an internal integrity, drawing on them as if they were free. Financial capital is not, in general, a good guide to social or natural capital flows, and many economists claim it is a contrary — even inherently contrary — process. See uneconomic growth for this discussion in detail.
- A serious failure in accountability for instance causes loss of social capital which decreases trust essential to commerce and polity, while loss of natural capital causes a reduction in nature's services (such as irrigation or flood control) that must then be made up for by human effort, stressing the human economy. There are no economists who claim that the financial debt or deficit is actually independent of these factors, and very few who claim that economic growth indicators or measures of national income work well enough to rely on them utterly.
- Thus, the ultimate political risk: collapse of an entire polity, which happened for instance in the collapse of the Soviet Union, or rise of a wholly different political economy, as happened after hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany, with the rise of Nazism. As this is in no state's interest (even China and Iran would suffer in the ensuing turmoil), it is likely that the world's nations are ready to do their utmost to back U.S. government debt.
This appears to be bordering on a personal essay/opinion piece, and I don't see any references backing it up in this article. I already removed this passage:
- Still, Congress has failed to act in time at least once. In 1995, the federal government closed down for six days from November 14 to November 20 due to partisan wrangling between the Congress and President Bill Clinton.
In its original context (and the fact that it's on this article), it's implying that this has something to do with the national debt. It didn't. The government failed to pass the required spending bills and failed to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government running, and that's why the government closed. The debt ceiling didn't play into it at all. —Cleared as filed. 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Benefits of debt
This article takes a very negative view on debt, and I understand the many reasons for doing so. However, I think that even a small mention of the benefits of having a debt would balance and improve this article well. Even economies (both public and private) which do well, often have debt (I hear that Norway doesn't but they're just lucky :)) -Samulili 11:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)klkl
Unsourced
I rv the statement A recession began in 2001. to the prior statement A recession began in 2000. We'd prefer not to see this kind of arbitrary change made without some specific source cited. John Reid 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, http://www.nber.org/cycles/slate011303.pdf, which I was going to post to the talk page
Or, if you want a more unbiased source, http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html
Also, who is we?
If we is the Wikipedia admins, why didn't you catch this in the first place (2000 was either unsourced or incorrectly sourced). Or NBER is not the official source, which I'm sure is wrong because of the following link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1407245.stm.
Paying the debt date edit
In the paying the debt article, in its large list of beginnings of recessions it states that the most recent recession began in 2000. Using either the traditional economic textbook definition of two consecutive quarters of negative growth OR using the National Bureau of Economic Research's more nebulous definiton the recession began in 2001, not 2000.
Also, the entire paragraph is extremely POV and seems to be taken straight from a POV book. I'm personally tempted to remove it, but having no background in economics, I will leave that to someone who knows what they're doing.
Is this not a POV-driven edit?
207.87.144.77 keeps making the following edit. He changes this:
"In 1998-2000 federal debt growth slowed to 1.4% annually (President Clinton’s surplus). A recession began in 2001. Then, President Bush cut taxes, debt growth rose, the recession ended, and the economy has continued to grow."
To this:
"In 1998-2000 federal debt growth slowed to 1.4% annually (President Clinton’s surplus). A recession began in 2001. Then, President Bush cut taxes and debt growth rose."
I reverted his edit, and then he changed it right back. He had this to say about it: "Economists are still debating whether or not the recession is "over", but it is clear that debt growth has continued."
1. What economists are these? Random Bush detractors? I recommend you go read the definition of recession, and go do some research. I suggest you read this page: Early 2000s recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession officially lasted from March 2001 to November 2001. It can be argued that it lasted, at the very most, until 2003. It is over now though.
2. It's clear that the national debt has continued to grow? Well no kidding. It has increased every single year for the past 46 years. King nothing 2 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Replies to arguments against paying down the debt
Regarding sources for the table, the first four columns come directly from the Bureau of the Public Debt and the next three columns were calculated in a spreadsheet, directly from those numbers (specifically, the numbers in columns 2 and 4). I can add a note about this below the source if that will help.
Another item of interest concerning the source is that the Bureau of the Public Debt numbers from 1866 through 1913 differ a bit from another often-used source, the Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Thayer was likely using this latter source (or a source close to it) as calculations using this source better approximate the numbers that he gave. Thayer's numbers of 29, 99.7, 59, 27, 57, and 36 are calculated to be 29, 99.96, 58, 22, 58, and 36. Only the 22 is significantly different. The following table shows the same calculations using this latter source:
FEDERAL DEBT (in millions of dollars) AND PERCENT CHANGE
High Debt Low Debt
---------------------------- Prior Low High Prior Low
Year Debt Year Debt to High to Low to Low Events
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1804 86.43 1812 45.21 -47.69 War of 1812 (1812-14)
1816 127.33 1821 89.99 181.65 -29.33 99.04 Panic of 1819
1822 93.55 1836 0.04 3.96 -99.96 -99.96 Panic of 1837
1843 32.74 1846 15.55 87184.08 -52.51 41352.78 Mex-Amer War (1846-48)
1851 68.30 1857 28.70 339.25 -57.98 84.57 Panic of 1857
1861 90.58 215.61 Civil War (1961-65)
1866 2755.76 1873 2151.21 2942.29 -21.94 2274.88 Panic of 1873
1879 2298.91 1893 961.43 6.87 -58.18 -55.31 Panic of 1893
1915 1191.26 23.91 World War I (1914-18)
1919 25484.51 1930 16185.31 2039.28 -36.49 1258.67 Great Depression
Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Part 2, Series Y 493, pages 1117-1118
Following is the table using the former source which I posted in the article:
FEDERAL DEBT (in millions of dollars) AND PERCENT CHANGE
High Debt Low Debt
---------------------------- Prior Low High Prior Low
Year Debt Year Debt to High to Low to Low Events
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1804 86.43 1812 45.21 -47.69 War of 1812 (1812-14)
1816 127.33 1821 89.99 181.65 -29.33 99.04 Panic of 1819
1822 93.55 1836 0.04 3.96 -99.96 -99.96 Panic of 1837
1843 32.74 1846 15.55 87184.08 -52.51 41352.78 Mex-Amer War (1846-48)
1851 68.30 1857 28.70 339.25 -57.98 84.56 Panic of 1857
1861 90.58 215.61 Civil War (1961-65)
1866 2773.24 1873 2234.48 2961.61 -19.43 2366.84 Panic of 1873
1879 2349.57 1893 1545.99 5.15 -34.20 -30.81 Panic of 1893
1915 3058.14 97.81 World War I (1914-18)
1919 27390.97 1930 16185.31 795.68 -40.91 429.25 Great Depression
Source: Bureau of the Public Debt
As can be seen, only the figures for 1893 and 1915 differ significantly and the same basic arguments hold despite the difference in numbers. In any case, the Bureau of the Public Debt numbers seemed likely to be the more accurate since they are on the Treasury website and can be easily updated whereas I don't believe that the other source is being updated. Until recently, I believe that it existed only in actual physical volumes and the online source simply contains copies of those volumes.
I well understand the value of sourcing and verifying all edits on Wikipedia. However, I would note that the dates of surpluses and depressions in the prior section (Paying the debt and arguments against doing so) are totally unsourced. It's only because I'm very familiar with Thayer's arguments that I deduced their source. I have no reason to think that Thayer's original arguments are political but I have heard those arguments cited numerous times in a political context. They seem to be a favorite argument on the Internet for excusing the debt. In any case, Thayer's arguments seem flawed or, at least, incomplete. He makes no mention of the wars during which the debt rocketed. Also, he states that the six periods that he lists were followed by the only six depressions in U.S. history. I have found no source that backs this up and several that seem to contradict it. If his arguments are to be allowed, it would seem that there needs to be some allowable way to objectively counter them. In any case, his arguments were added by someone with the IP 12.73.228.87 on 12 March 2006. I believe that this is the paragraph that the above comment under "Paying the debt date edit" is calling "extremely POV".