Talk:History of the United States public debt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

nearly meaningless chart

All spending originates in the House of Representatives. A similar chart based on the party in control of the house would be more in tune with political realities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.5.31 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not true that spending originates in the House. They don't START the budget process, but are the second step in the process.

Step 1) The President, as head of the Executive Branch, sends over a budget request every February, just after the State of the Union address.

Step 2) The House then starts begins debate on the President's budget request, makes changes, then passes their suggestions on to the Senate. The Senate makes further changes, and the differences between the two houses are nailed down in committee. Once the differences are nailed down in Congress, the budget is sent to the President.

Step 3) The President either signs off on the budget, or vetoes it. Reagan and Clinton both had historic government shutdowns because of their vetoes. A veto has to go back to Congress, and the veto is either overwritten with a two-thirds majority, or changes are made and sent back to the President.

The reason this page is appropriate is because 1) the President starts the budget process, and 2) he signs off on it, regardless of the changes made by Congress.

Finally, a fiscal year runs from October 1 of the prior year to September 30 of the fiscal year. Budgets are enacted BEFORE elections. Consequently, the first year of a President's term actually falls under their predecessor's final budget (for example, fiscal year 2001 started Oct 1, 2000, before G.W. Bush was elected; that made it Clinton's final budget).

Well, the buck has to stop somewhere, so I don't have a problem with that issue. However, the chart Image:Annual federal outlay.png isn't adjusted for inflation, which does make the chart meaningless. I move to delete it.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing seems to be an exercise in Wikipedia-as-original-statistics-compilation. An actual article, with references, about the relationship between national debt and presidential terms, might be useful. There are plenty of references arguing both sides of that, so one could be written. But this sort of original research isn't very useful. --Delirium (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Little known fact: adjusting for the President's party controlling one, two or no houses of congress doesn't change the simple fact that Republican'ts are fiscally irresponsible. Try it yourself, and see! DOR (HK) (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then how can you explain that it was the GOP congress' budget that was nearly in balance during the Clinton years? --68.212.10.233 (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The same way it can be explained that it was the same GOP Congress that ran up debt under Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.112.192 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you include it then (or regardless of whether or not it enforces what the first graph suggests)? There don't seem to be many graphs that take it into account available. This is rather curious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.212.68 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that politicians aren't fiscally responsible, and that's true on the state, local, and national levels. Party doesn't enter into it, except that, it's pretty obvious that they're out to trump one another as to which one can be the most fiscally incompetent group in human history before the whole thing falls apart. Considering that Obama & the Dems are now on track to overspend by a trillion dollars EACH YEAR for the next 10 years (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/85237-cbo-estimates-huge-deficits-average-1-trillion-per-year-for-the-next-decade), I think the Dems are going to win that sorry-assed award. OBloodyHell (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The first comment was correct. The "buck" stops at Congress. This entire wikipedia article is willfully misleading, politically based and biased. A breakdown by who controlled Congress at the time is a good deal more interesting (and actually does not particularly favor Republicans or Democrats, which I guess is why you Democrats continue to support this false page.) 128.222.37.58 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from your own partisan personal preference, do you have any supporting evidence for your view? There are several reliable sources cited on the page that point out that the total size of the budget is essentially determined by the president. Additionally, if what you say is correct, won't you expect a systematic relationship between congressional party control and the size of the deficit? LK (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I got news for you: Its the Presidents office that writes the budget that submitted to Congress, staffs the regulatory agencies, and sets the overall economic policy. Spending approved by Congress that is not a part of the overall budget would have a relative ding to the size of overall spending. That being said, I'm not opposed to adding two collumns to the chart that would measure the spending approved in the budget, and total spending for the fiscal year as a comparison. If anything, we'll at least get numbers on how bad each Congress was at adding on pork after the budget passed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerk2 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the buck stops with Congress when it comes to federal budgets. But why bring that up here? This is an article about the national debt during for presidential terms, not congressional makeup? If somebody wants to have comparable information for congressional makeup, then they should just make another article for that.--Erowe1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you all are missing the point. It's not up to you to decide who is responsible for the budget it is the reader's responsibility. You are responsible for providing the facts. I think the budget numbers are fairly accurate. Let them stand on their own. You do not have to highlight the data by president. I think the fairest way to present the facts is to present two charts. One by who is president and one by who is in control of the House. Let the reader decide who is more responsible. Of course, which ever chart you put first would suggest they are more responsible. Perhaps another option is to put the president in office in the first column and highlight the rows based on who is in control of the House. I do believe the budget is generated in the House. The president submits a budget but when the House is controlled by the other party it is pretty much Dead On Arrival. The president does have the power to veto budget items. Maybe a discussion of the federal budget process would make the article more complete. What you leave out is often time more important than what is said in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.44.24 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Time series plot?

It would be nice to see a plot of the year-by-year GDP and public debt, with shades indicating which President's party was then in office (similar to the one now used on the United State Public Debt page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.215.69 (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Using GDP for any comparison creates a false picture of economy activity, you may ask why? Well the formula for the GDP adds in "government spending". GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

Democratic spending will typically increase government programs, while republican spending typically funnels more $ to private firms and is more aligned with tax cuts. The GDP is not capable determining private sector growth from government growth. For the record while I'd admit to being fiscally conservative and perhaps more libertarian, neither republican or democrat (they are all as bought and sold like sheep) I desire accurate measures of how our economy is doing. Ever really look at a GDP chart? Its meaningless, and I think meant to be .... its a misleading picture. Thus, measuring deficits and federal debt against it doesn't reveal anything meaningful. Deficits and total debt do carry meaning. And I'd agree that it is congress rather than the president who set the stage for most spending. harmles2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.111.165 (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw out there that conventional wisdom agrees with the above comment (Democrats spend more Republicans tax less) but these are not cited facts. Also, GDP is GPD, it has to be supported by the country in question and measures the size of their economy. The criticism applies only in the very short run, there is no long run way of expanding the economy by manipulating government spending, otherwise there would not be poor countries. 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The line of data for Obama in the Table of Federal Spending, Federal Debt, and GDP is incorrect. The first entry is $3,991. The second entry should be $3,991/1.29 or $3,094. Changes all the percentages sharply in the rest of the line. Accidental or intentional?

No Special Appropriation Spending

This doesn't include the additional money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan as seperate appropriations. Adding it will significantly increase recent debt. Also, it is not clear if this spending is included in these debt numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neepster (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Public Debt Chart

The Public Debt Chart is confusing because the colors for the Democrat and Republican presidential terms in office do not match the colors of the words Democrat and Republican.

I don't think it is appropriate to remove value-adding content that has been requested by other readers, before it has been duly discussed.

Please be specific about your complaints: (remove erroneous chart. It does nor reflect table 7.1 in the cited source; also grammatically incorrect. please correct it before reinserting)

I have double checked the numbers and they seem ok. Bear in mind that this is public debt, not gross debt. Since other readers may share the same confusion, I have adjusted the text for more clarity. Dejo (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The table immediately above the new chart shows that the estimated gross debt in 2009 is 68% of GDP. Public debt is a completely different figure - with the chart showing about 40% of GDP. Where is the primary source for this chart? And "Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. Having a chart with data that doesn't match the adjacent table, no footnotes, and a glaring grammatical error makes Wikipedia look terrible. Although an anonymous reader did ask for a chart showing "public debt", "gross debt" is a much more important measure, since Social Security will have to be paid out of the difference.--Appraiser (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You are deleting valuable content that has been requested. The graphic was contained within its own section on 'public debt' which was clearly distinguished from gross debt. You may think gross debt is more important, but that is your opinion (this is not an article about social security). NPOV says when in doubt, that it is better to present multiple sides of the story rather than deleting the ones you don't agree with. The money that the government owes to itself is clearly easier to pay off than the public debt. You have questioned the source twice now, which is baffling because it is cited both within the graphic and linked at the bottom of the page. I agree with you that there is a grammatical error on the chart, but Wikipedia's editorial policy favors keeping imperfect content if it adds knowledge. I am putting the graphic back. Do not delete it again unless you come up with an economist consensus that public debt is a poor metric. Dejo (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if you are the creator of the chart. Do you have the capability to fix the grammatical error?--Appraiser (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you think that "The money that the government owes to itself is clearly easier to pay off than the public debt?"--Appraiser (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I created the original chart and then someone else added the colors and the Democrat/Republican labels. That makes the fix a little more time consuming and I am also facing a software constraint at the moment. At the time, it seemed like the public debt was the more significant indicator of health. I haven't seen any compelling evidence to overturn that notion.

I recently heard economist/journalist Robert Kuttner describe the current debt as 40% on Fresh Air, so he thinks that the public debt is the more relevant figure. Concerning my reasoning, it seems rather obvious that money owed to self is not too bad. Actually, I would turn the question on its head, and call for justification for including self-debt. For one thing, I would assume that you don't have to pay much interest on it - seeing as these are just IOU's from one department to another and not actual debt instruments. Often it is said that the use of gross debt is a way of exaggerating the amount of debt. The public debt is also known as "real debt" or "actual debt". Here is an article on that sort of thing.

I would say that your assertion about Social Security being paid out of the difference needs substantiation. That doesn't really make sense as you cannot use money owed as a source of revenue. I think I know what you are talking about and yes Social Security is going to be a problem in a couple of decades, but that probably does not bear on this point.Dejo (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Long before Social Security "runs out of money", the program will need to cash in its internal bonds, straining the general budget, which currently is subsidized by the program's surplus. This will cause either much higher taxes or inflation, or both. I don't see this internal debt as being "easy to pay off". An alternative is to slash promised Social Security benefits. We'll see if that's a political possibility.--Appraiser (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right. What fraction of the self-debt is borrowed from Social Security? That would help understand this further. The social security self-debt is clearly worse than other self-debt since it is systematic. However it is not quite as bad as public debt since it does not incur financing charges. When the new budget comes out, I will make a graphic which includes both gross and public debt curves on it. Dejo (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The last column looks like it is mislabeled. The changes given are in percentage points not percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.254.20 (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the chart is a pretty good idea in principal but is poorly excecuted. The House controls the budget and the data really needs to summarize for Republican controlled Houses and Democratic controlled Houses. The deflation indicator is also incredibly misleading. Between 80 and 81 the indicator shows a change from 50 to 56. This is a 12 percent inflation rate. The period from 2009 to 2010 shows a change of 1.27 to 1.29. This is a 1.5% rate of inflation. The indicator changed 6 points versus 2 points but the actual inflation rate was almost 8 times as much. I was a kid in the 70s. I know how high inflation was and I know why Jimmy Carter wasn't elected president again. 192.35.44.24 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)PJB

The chart is misleading for the year 2010 which has "split control of congress." In 2010, the Democrats had complete control of Congress. Republicans did not control the House of Representatives until January, 2011. The 2010 graph should be blue, not purple. 2011 should be the first purple graph. JCM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.87.132 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

On "Borrowing from Social Security"... The Social Security Trust Fund has lots of money, which it has to keep somewhere. This money could be stored as gold (which has been quite volatile in recent decades, so that would be irresponsible investing), or as cash (which degrades through inflation, so that would be irresponsible too), or in the stock market (again, volatile and subject to accusations of political market manipulation), or in government bonds (which earn interest and are reasonably safe). In fact, SSTF invests most of its money in government bonds, as seems appropriate for a government agency. But another name for "SSTF investing in government bonds" is "government borrowing from SSTF". If the government isn't going to borrow from SSTF, who will? Is there a better place for SSTF to put its money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbloch (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Misc

Hello Does anyone take into consideration all of the events or catastrophes.crises,etc,natural or unforseen that took place all through the Bush terms 2001 thru 2008, and that both houses were Democratic controlled.Which certainly accounts for a good portion of the spending and debt excluding the Iraq war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.94.183 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. The Republicans controlled both the House and Senate for the first six years under Bush. They lost control in the 2006 elections, handing both over to the Democrats.

Can you come up with some objective measure of the clamaties that show that Republican Presidents have been hit with more than Democratic Presidents. For 911, the impact and implications of Pearl Harbor is at least a match, yet the result wasn't a recession and increased unemployment. The first oil embargo occurred during Nixon's term and the second during Carter's term, but the economic impact wasn't as bad as the possible impact of increased oil prices in 2008. The real problem with presenting the data in this fashion is we don't gain an understanding of the specific policies that have positive and negative impacts on the economy. However, if you are correct in arguing that wars and embargos, and other similar factors are the cause of the different economic metrics, then the question would be, what is it about the polices of the two parties that cause there to be more or less international conflict. What I notice in the conservative literature to justify their position that their policies are best is to engage in data analysis and explanation that is applicable to only specific periods. Eg. Reagan cutting taxes was responsible for the growth that followed, ignoring all the tax hikes that followed, but the poor performance of the Bush administration even after unrelenting tax cutting to levels well below any during Reagan's term is explained by a whole host of things, for which similar things were seen during JFK/LBJ/Nixon. Mulp (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless we consider all federal budgets to originate from the rabbit hole of Alice in Wonderland we must have some confidence in the federal budgetary process and in the numbers, be they from the OMB or the CBO, reflecting reality and it should be only a matter of arithmetic including whether they are or are not inflation-adjusted - we can take that all away back to the First Continental Congress. The Bush43 Administration, and on occasion past administrations, have employed what is euphemistically termed "off-budget appropriations" but in the end they come out of some pocket and must be accounted in the fiscal year. The Bush43 Administration has employed the technique of off-budgeting, emergency and supplemental budget requests numerous times and this is a matter of the historical record. The comment that Bush faced a crisis, presumably to justify deficit spending, is understandable but unnecessarily defensive. Washington, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt (Franklin not Theodore) and Bush41 among other presidents also managed a crisis; they had budgets to content with and the justification for the spending - Washington had the Revolution, Madison had the War of 1812, Jackson (who lowered the deficit to thirty three thousand dollars plus change) had accumulated a debt during a severe depression in 1837-44, Lincoln had the Civil War, Wilson had World War I and Roosevelt had the Great Depression and War War II. Massive budget deficits were accumulated by purported fiscally conservative Republicans: Ronald Reagan, Bush41 (George Herbert Walker Bush - first Iraq War, savings and loan crisis) and George W. Bush (Bush43) with only William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, the 42nd President, reining in the national debt and leaving office with a surplus. George W. Bush has had a Republican Congress to rubber stamp his agenda in both Houses of Congress from January 3, 2001, when he entered office (Inauguration on January 20), through January 3, 2007, when the off-year elections saw the Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives and obtain a slim 51 vote majority (with the help of two independents) in the U.S. Senate. Spending requests, while originating in the House of Representatives, represent the Fiscal Year Budget of the Administration. Not withstanding "checks and balances", the Executive Branch is exceptionally difficult to thwart because it exercises direct control over every department of the federal government. This, allied with the threat of a Presidential Veto requiring a 2/3 majority in both houses to overturn, the absence of 60 or more votes to force cloture in the U.S. Senate, giving the minority the power to obstruct the passage of any bill simply by threatening a filibuster, we can clearly see that the Republicans continued to hold sway (and continue until the 111th Congress convenes on January 3, 2009, and the Inauguration of the 44th President of the U.S. on January 20, 2009). So, George W. Bush has been in thorough control, in concert with a Republican Congress, for eight years. Bush43 has had the War on Terror, the Iraq War and the financial meltdown on Wall Street, as a justification for his profligacy. History will record, not us, whether it is (and was) a morally and ethically justified expenditure of the trillions of dollars (not to mention lives). I expect that he will be treated like Warren G. Harding of whom the poet E. E. Cummings said on hearing of his demise "The only man, woman or child who wrote a simple declarative sentence with seven grammatical errors is dead."[Wikipedia]. Kenfowler1945 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LBJ had his Great Society programs and the Vietnam War to pay for, but still reduced the deficit. I think its because he had control of Congress like no other President - before or since. Steven1992 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Spending

The third section which talks about spending could use some improvement. The two plots could ideally be replaced by a single plot with three curves that all span the same period. It is also not clear whether these are adjusted dollars or not.

Moved the two plots to the last section; they probably should not be included on this Wiki page because the plots are not delineated by U.S. presidential terms. The plots should be on a more general page, in all likelihood. Sicjedi (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Second, the table is two wide and unwieldy. I propose deleting the "billions" and "inflation adjustor" columns. It might also be good to delete the GDP and debt columns. It would be nice to add a column specifying the party holding power in Congress. Dejo (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The table has been reduced some, partially by fixing the "citation needed" requests. The "billions" and "inflation adjustor" seem to contain highly relevant information: What was the federal debt exactly at the end of GWB's first term, for example? Inflation could be viewed as a hidden tax, so it is also important to see how this changes during different presidential terms. Sicjedi (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to update the last table "Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP", but am unable to figure out what year the inflation adjustment is adjusting to. The closest I can come to is the assumption for example for the 2007 numbers that the adjustment to 2004 was used. Can the originator of this table please comment and/or update to the present fiscal year (2009).--Neepster (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes

All the links under Notes link back to this very page--should they be links at all? Kcor53 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP

The percentage figures in the summary (top) portion of the chart show the total increases in spending, debt and GDP during the terms of Presidents and totaled over the times each party has held the Presidency. This is misleading; it would be better to show the average per year for at least the time each party has held the job, and in my opinion for each presidential term also.JakartaDean (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The percentages you are talking about are from "the average of the values for all the presidents in that party," as is indicated by the notes. They are not "total increases." The average is of the percent increase for each 4-year presidential term of each party. Sicjedi (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is this thing called Congress

i just wanted to make another post on this discussion page asking why whoever wrote it did not include congress. seeing as how they approve the budget.Decora (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The President proposes the budget and often gets basically what was asked for. But I think the real reason is that with 537 elected and hundreds of more unelected officials having a hand in the budget, this is a necessary simplification. Basically, the President sets the tone. O¹⁸ (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that this descriptions of the data is what it is. It is certainly flawed in the sense of thinking of the President as making a unitary selection of the debt level, but the President is not only a politician but also the leader of the country and so they define their era broadly in terms of how people thing of a time. i.e., "That was during the Carter administration, so we were all wearing broad lapels." Obviously Carter didn't change lapel size, but he is a touchstone for the time period. O¹⁸ (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is dismissive and clearly the result of either political bias or a lack of knowledge about the way our government works, neither of which have any place here. As Decora (and others here) have pointed out, it is congress that spends our money and what they actually spend each year only vaguely resembles the budget that is initially proposed by the executive branch.

Take a look at this chart. The data comes from two government sites: one for the Senate and one for the House of Representatives

If this data was presented as part of the charts in this article it would present a more realistic picture of which party is more or less fiscally responsible. Far from complicating the presentation, if the data was color coded red/blue as it is in the chart above it would actually simplify things, IMHO.

One more thing: the first two lines of the graph in the last section of the article should be removed completely as they present a politically biased conclusion based on incomplete data. Eegorr (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you want that sort of page (one that lists all three affiliations of two of the branches of government) then you should be bold and create that page. This page regards debt by presidential term.

However, I think that your comment does raise a good point that a little arguing for this type of analysis is called for. I wonder if there is a reference that shows the similarity between the Presidents proposed budget and the eventual law. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

General Comments

I changed the dates of Eisenhower's first term from 1953-1959 to 1953-1957.

In general, I find this article informative, and the reader can draw his own conclusions from the information presented. I don't think it takes any genius to see, for example, that the reduction under Truman was due to an economic boom and the military build-down after WW2, whereas the increase under GW Bush was due to slow economic growth, combined with a tax cut and two wars. An explanation would surely break down into partisan debate, which is inappropriate here.

We already have articles on the United States budget process and the United States federal budget which partisans would do well to read before commenting here.

One thing which is not clearly explained in these articles: Preparing a budget is a VERY involved process, involving requests and reviews of these requests in every branch of government. This is pretty well beyond the capabilities of the Congress; they don't have the staff nor the time. This was the reason for the United States federal government shutdown of 1995: Gingrich couldn't simply pass the budget he wanted, he demanded that Clinton prepare a new one. Despite much heated debate in Congress, the total federal budget always comes in within about 1% of the president's request.

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

biased chart

Hey, why not start the chart in 1929? Now the Democrats would look terrible -- we can blame them for the Great Depression! This would make just as much sense as the current charts, which effectively blame Republicans for the collapse of the internet bubble and the aftereffects of 9/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.48.17 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited the page, someone is putting the year (2010) in the wrong column for only Obama, next to all of his figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micfri (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia had a Like button. Excellent job of putting the data together. It is not biased. It is funny, I remember the republicans arguing that "the budget does not matter" and pushing hard against Clinton's leadership to reduce it. What is completely crazy about the comments on this page of the president not having a say in balancing the budget is that Clinton actually on a platform to balance the budget. Really, do you have such short memories? On the other hand,(since I am not as biased as many of the people who are commenting on this page) Clinton's platform to reduce the budget actually was pushed during infomercials by the republican guy in Texas with the big hat (forgot his name). Since the republicans seem to always want to take warp the facts, I think we should just give the guy from Texas 100% of the credit. I on the other hand will give Clinton credit for learning from the texas guy and making it part of his plan.

I am in a social economic class where there are way more republicans than democrats. I am very tired of hearing them criticize the democrats with half baked truths and not standing up for things. Face the facts guys. The republicans, starting with Reagan, felt that it was totally fine to spend money we did not have while pretending to be fiscally responsible. In addition, the crisis that we are in right now can be laid at George W.’s feet for getting us into the Iraq war under false pretenses. Anyone who does not think that this is a huge contributor to the situation is delusional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.26.127 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

the chart is biased in that it starts right at the peak of WW2 / New Deal debt. the chart suggests that FDR reduced the federal debt, which is misleading.

it should also be noted that looking at the "percent of gdp" side of this debt is problematic, because gdp contracted during the depression, making debt look much larger in relation to gdp than it would normally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.255.254 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the best data starts in 1947 . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's completely biased in that it attempts to lead people to believe that Democrats are good and Republican are bad. If not, how about updating this with the Obama/Pelosi numbers? And/Or contrast the comparison with the amount of debt by makeup of congress. I've done this before and have some data available. Jkjfoley (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe look at the fact that the graph pegs Bush at 40%, even though the chart says its at 60%. Someone fix the graph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jincongz (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality data didn't exist prior to the 1940s. Obama/Pelosi's data isn't yet available since the first time of Obama has not yet finished, and all of these numbers are based on the end of the terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.112.192 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The real problem with this whole article is that the seated congress often creates entitlement programs that account for decades of massive FUTURE spending... this should be attributed to the congress that passed it (e.g. Medicare) and we would see where the real "spending" is taking place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article tries to do too much without explaining what it cannot do. For example, it does not report that "debt" is the amount of Federal Treasury notes issued, not the amount of debt that should be recorded on the balance sheet of the Federal government. For example, under GAAP, a corporation must record the CURRENT actuarial amount of its pension obligations, even though it may not be required to make those payments for several years. Corporations do not record the true value of that actuarial debt (they use a larger discounted amount than the amount that will actually accrue to their pension assets, they are only required to record 80-90% of the liability, etc.), but they still record something under GAAP that makes it easy to compare corporations to see how much future obligation is coming.

The federal government does not record ANY amount of its future obligations as "debt." As a consequence, it looks like debt increased at a slow rate during the Clinton years, when in fact it was ballooning on an actuarial basis because Clinton was using the increased taxes from Social Security (remember when he taxed 50% of Social Security benefits for the "rich" in the 1993 Act?) to have to borrow less -- he was essentially borrowing more from the "Social Security trust fund" -- and from future generations -- for his entire tenure.

To be fair, George W. Bush added Medicare Part D, which decreased the cost of Medicare, but increased the overall amount of the unrecorded actuarial indebtedness of the Federal government. To be fair again, when Barack Obama proposes a payroll tax holiday, he is further creating an actuarial imbalance in Social Security and Medicare.

So any article like this needs to explain the difference between current account balances and actual indebtedness. While the US debt limit may be $16 trillion now -- which at roughly $49,000 for every man, woman and child in the country is probably unpayable -- the amount of actuarial debt for Social Security and Medicare ranges from around $70 trillion to $114 trillion. No one really knows what the number is. That means that the actual amount to be paid by every man, woman and child in the country is really closer to $300,000. Since roughly 50% of the population is not paying any taxes other than FICA taxes, and 50% of the remainder are paying at a pretty low level, the taxpayers that are truly going to pay this debt probably owe something like $1.2 million per taxpaying individual. Truly staggering.

But this article does not really try to be objective. The first footnote -- that records that Congress rarely approves the full amount of the President's budget -- is sourced from 1990 and ignores recent history.

Neither this article nor the comments capture the true magnitude of the debt. I know there is no way to resolve this dilemma since the debate seems to be joined between partisans on this page, but there are some serious economists who have looked at these issues, and it may be worth asking them to weigh in. Perhaps a liberal economist and a conservative economist could see if they could write this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRBarker3 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see more about actuarial debt in this article too. It currently seems to be written by a Democrat partisan. Where is NPOV? Gearspring (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Chart

The chart was very good and informative why did you guys delete it? I might readd it unless I get a good reason. 1.31.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.24.66.33 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and took office in January 1993, the presidential year 1993 is attributed to George H.W. Bush. George W. was elected in 2000 and took office in January 2001, the presidential year 2001 is attributed to Clinton. I assume it was done this way by Democrat-leaning editors to make Democrat presidents appear more fiscally prudent. While the preceding president does have a role in preparing the first year budget of his successor, the any budget deficit or surplus belongs to the president in office during that year. I am sure the next thing we will see on this page is an attempt to assign 2009 to Bush despite Obama's $800 billion stimulus package. I wish to put other editors on notice that I intend to correct the years on this article and restore a neutral point of view.Mcfly007 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The chart is NOT misleading. You just don't understand one thing: The Fiscal Year runs from October 1st of the preceding year to September 30th of the year in question. Therefore, fiscal year 2001 was IN PLACE October 1st, 2000, BEFORE the election, and is therefore Clinton's last budget. Fiscal year 2009 was in place October 1st, 2008, BEFORE Obama was elected, and is therefore Bush's last budget.

It's that simple.

Myfly007, I didn't make the chart, but I am going to ask you to assume good faith on the part of the other editors. Please see WP:AGF. I think putting the data behind the chart and the program that made it on the page would be a good idea, but I don't really see how it is biased. I think that having the color spread to where the president is in office is not only honest but also factual. However, the US government's fiscal year is October to October, so the budget year is already 1/4 over when the president takes office, and changing it radically (especially without even a full cabinet) is extremely difficult. I think you make a good point that even the year after might really be chalked up (at least partially) to the prior president. 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mcfly007, As far as I know, these are US Federal BUDGET years, not calendar years, hence it is correct to attribute 1993 to GHWB since he was the president who signed that year's budget.--Neepster (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NOT TRUE: GHWB refused to sign the FY 2010 budget that was created by Democrat controlled congress. One of the first things that Obama did was sign the budget that included the first round of huge Federal Debt runups.

Neepster, it look to me like that year is assigned to the break between GHWB and Clinton. Look for example at 2000, that is assigned to Clinton while 2001 is on the cusp between Clinton and GWB. 0¹⁸ (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A more honest chart would be to give a Senator 5 points, a Congressman 1 point, and the president equal to about 33 Senators and 200 Congressmen (veto power, but can be overturned by 2/3rds). Then redo the chart with sliding scale of power each party has; and put asteriks in areas where one party either has a big majority or super majority. If it's done this way I think you will all find that both parties are basically equally responsible for the deficit. Why won't anyone do it? Is anyone interested in honesty any more?98.165.15.98 (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the most misleading things about the chart is the SUMMATION of what the "Republicans" did in 5 terms (20 years) versus what the "Democrats" did in 3 terms (12 years). Everything was totaled, and not taking into account what group did what on a yearly average which would have been fairer. Some of the data is wrong. I attempted to use data obtained from an audit, but someone reversed what I did. In my opinion at the very least the "Democrat" and "Republican" rows should be removed, but due to the fact that presidents are responsible for signing legislation impacting their presidency, the entire chart should be removed. Bush shouldn't be responsible for the $862 Billion Stimulus package Obama signed during the 2009 Fiscal Year. Yet in this chart, not only is he responsible, but every Republican is responsible for that. Ghanima1971 (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

questions

This entire article is nonsense and, I suspect, motivated by political bias. The US Constitution places the responsibility for budgets with Congress, not the President. Few Presidential budgets are even voted on, let alone passed. One of Clinton's was brought up for a vote in the Senate. It lost 99-0. [1] It didn't even get any Democrat votes. It would be far more appropriate to track National Debt versus the majority party in congress. --68.212.10.233 (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. The responsibility for the budget does NOT rest with the Congress. That rests with the President. The President sends a budget request to Congress every February. Congress then debates the President's proposed budget, making changes as they deem appropriate. They then send the budget back to the President before October 1st for his signature (or veto). If he signs off on it, the budget goes into law; if he vetoes it, it has to go back to Congress.

THAT is the reason this article is important: The President STARTS and ENDS the budget process.

Rubbish. The power of the purse starts and ends with the Congress. The first commentor is right, this is a non-sense article with a non-NPOV, obvious pro-Democractic Party agenda. The fact that the last three years are missing from the "President" chart is highly suspect since it would show Obama to be an unprecedented spender. Also the attribution of 1.4T to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is highly suspect, since the direct costs of the wars prior to his leaving office never topped the cost of the Stimulus and Tarp, which is also falsely attributed to Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.204.19 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the addition of the "Increase Debt ($T)" column in the first table, the table might have left the false impression that under some presidents, the national debt decreased. The new column clears that right up. The new data might be more meaningful were they adjusted for inflation.

It's also misleading in a separate way, in that it furthers the meme that Clinton actually reduced the deficit. This only works by the Fed's "funny money" accounting scheme. The numbers in question ignore off-the-books expenses incurred by "stealing money" from off-the-books Social Security revenues and using them to pay for on-budget expenses. The total actual federal debt on AND off budget increased under Clinton just like everyone else's did, and at similar rates/amounts. Any accounting scheme which uses GAAP wouldn't allow such BS to pass by. Try that as a corporation and your treasurer winds up in jail. OBloodyHell (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just for the record, NPOV and citing sources technically covers the talk pages too. The fed doesn't keep the books for the USG, the treasury does (hence the name). The deficit was almost zero under Clinton and was projected to go the otherway before the 2000 election where the candidates were campaiging on what they were going to do with the surplus. The accounting scheme that is employed by the Treasury is not funny money, it is a valid scheme but has some (serious) problems that you need to be aware of--like all complex accounting schemes. Probably looking at both the gross and public debt would make the most sense. 0¹⁸ (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Political Motivation and Synthesis of Material

The article is all politically motivated, original source synthesis. Until some academic research on the subject can be cited, the article is merely a forum for conflicting political agendas. The article has no place in Wikipedia. In the meantime, I'm adding the POV and Synthesis template tags.

Can you please point to the exact text in those policies that you think rules out this article? 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Synth. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. I don't see a source that reproduces the figures given in the table. Someone apparently computed them from Source A div Source B. The section is entitled "Synthesis of published material that advances a position"

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So, if I find that, say [2] has this as a figure, will you agree it is not synthesis? 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a table, here is one [3]. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see actual percentages from the chart on either source. Further, since the home page of one site says, "Republican Extremists Threaten Congressman!", it's clearly a non-neutral advocacy site which raises issues with WP:RS. If the figures are accurate, you should be able to source them from a reliable source.

That was a news story, and actually did happen by the way. Anytime somebody threatens physical violence against a political figure they are accurately described as extremists, since that is an extreme course of action.

Also, as I said below, a much more appropriate metric seems to be Federal Debt as a percentage of Federal Budget (or Federal Tax Receipts). The article subject is federal debt, not debt as a function of economic output. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that an ad from Google on the side of an article can figure in an RS argument (it is not there when I click). That is also a valid news article, with those fact things backing it up. There are also two links. One tabulates changes in debt in dollars. The other has a figure in terms of GDP (that is debt over GDP). I would also point out that the fact of the debt and Presidency are hardly contentious. While this might be synthesis in the strictest sense, it is so mild as to be ignorable. If we really followed synthesis all the time we could only quote. These facts are just not that controversial. 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring the point that the actual data in THIS table is not in THAT source. Period. The question about whether or not Zfacts is a side issue at this point (and no, that statement I quoted did not come from "a Google ad"). Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If that were the requirement, all of Wikipedia would be copy and paste and the whole thing would be a copyright violation. The concept is not novel, the data is from a reliable source, therefore, it is within bounds. 0¹⁸ (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure why this isn't sinking in. Every statement must have a source, period. The table makes claims that are not backed up by either source. Further, the table uses original research and a common math error to reach a flawed conclusion. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually think this is worth a RFC or posting on a noticeboard. I think this is a gray area. 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Although the President plans and approves the budget for his successor, in the case of the FY1993 budget (1Oct92-30Sept93), it was prepared by the Clinton administration and signed by Bill Clinton in August 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRheeus (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

table differences

Hi, what are the calculations used for the big table? i.e. the table does not appear as is (by POTUS term) in the linked ref., what is the method used to calculate the columns? 0¹⁸ (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I update the table so that it (a) included FDR's third term (because the source has the data) (b) used last year - first year instead of whatever it uses? i.e. for FDR's first term it would use 1945 debt/gdp minus 1941 debt/gdp. 0¹⁸ (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Article problems

The article also contains a glaring math error. You cannot subtract percentages as it does; a percentage is a ratio; you must express differences as a third ratio. This is very basic.

Further, since debt is paid back not by GDP, but by tax revenues, a better column would be "debt in terms of revenues", or at least "debt in terms of total federal budget". Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think of the GDP as a deflator, that addresses both of these issues. Debt as a fraction of GDP means how many years of output are owed. It is a very common measure of debt for cross country comparisons. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The real issue here is the math error in the table. Let me illustrate. If the debt is 1% of GDP when you take office, and 2% when you leave office, it hasn't increased by only 1%. You've doubled the debt/GDP ratio -- the actual increase is 100%. You can't blindly add and subtract percentages; you have to treat them as ratios.

Also, the person who calculated the figures apparently didn't understand fiscal years. The budget for fiscal year 1980, for instance, actually starts in 1979. If you're trying to assign responsibility to presidents, you need to roll the dates forward one year, as by the time a president takes office in 2001, the fiscal budget for that year is not only already approved, but the year is already four months over.

This is why original research of this type is so risky to do. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that the table is dated correctly, with, i.e. 2001 assigned to Clinton who proposed and signed the budget for 2001. The one column that is not this way (and you could fix this) is the growth in debt column. I will get to that probably in a week or two.

As for adding and subtracting debt/GDP, I think the table would make more sense if it was growth in real debt rather than growth in debt/GDP or growth in nominal debt. However, if we want to keep debt/GDP, the statistic you propose answers one question, the statistic on the page answers another one--it's just a question of which statistic is relevant, neither is right or wrong. I find the one you propose difficult to interpret, but I don't really love the one that is on there either. 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you missed the point. Clinton was elected in 2000, took office in 2001, and then signed off on the 2002 budget. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can live with Debt/GDP; that's an opinion, not a policy violation. However, the data in the table is currently unsourced. I have looked for a valid source but been unable to find one. If one can't be located, the table is going to have to be deleted as unverifiable. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Clinton was elected in 1992 and 1996. After the 1992 election he took office in January 1993 and most (all?) of the 1993 budget was signed into law. So the 1993 budget is the last year assigned to George HW Bush. 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant Bush. His first budget was for the year 2002 -- but the chart starts him at 2001. All the presidents on the chart have the same problem. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, isn't that the definition of start? It's like if I jump up in the air, and you want to measure how high I go, you will have to get an initial reading on how high I was before I jumped--you might call this the start position. That is what the 2001 number serves as, the jumping off point (or start) for Bush. 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:SYN explicitly states that "routine calculations" do not constitute original research, so there is no need to find sources for the percentages provided that both the debt and GDP are properly sourced. Also, the statistic used, % of GDP, is used almost universally as a measure of debt (see List of countries by public debt for example) as it provides a convenient way to compare countries.

I think the confusion over the "fiscal dates" might be a result of the two different tabels in the article. In the lower table, GWB's first budget is 2002, just as you correctly state that it should be Fell Gleaming. However, in the top table the column lists not fiscal years, but "Term years". The question is, is the "start debt" in this table from the start of the term or the first fiscal year? I presume it's done as in the bottom chart, but 0¹⁸ can comment on that. It might make the table clearer if the table lists "Budget years" or somethingn along those lines.

Finally, Fell Gleaming, please refrain from referring to a "glaring math error". There is no error. What you are preposing is to measure the percentage which the percentage increases. (IE 1%->2% is a 100% increase). What is currently done is to show the absolute value the percentage increases. Both are valid ways of showing the results. I happen to prefer the current format, as it makes comparing year to year results MUCH simpler. However, it's certainly not fair to call this a "mathematical error". (See for example List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin which calculates the margin as Winner% - Loser%). TDL (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this isn't the case. It's a common error among those who don't understand percentages. You cannot determine an absolute difference between two percentages by subtracting them. They're ratios, and have to be treated as such. If you increase spending from 1% of GDP to 2% of GDP, you've increased spending by 100%, not 1%. Pull out a calculator, work with a few different values, and I think you'll understand. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, it's called a percentage point change [4], it is accepted and valid. The Percentage_point Wikipedia article on the topic also outlines this use clearly (but obviously itself is not a source!). 0¹⁸ (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not only not a source, but its entirely unsourced itself. Percentage points are valid methodology in same cases, but they are not percentages. When used, they must be correctly identified as such. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Math forum is not a source? I only added the wikipedia link so you could read more. So do you think that if the header were clearly labeled as a PP change, that would be okay? 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, with my recent edit adding this name to the column, can we remove the factual accuracy template from the top of the page? 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you unambiguously label the column as percentage points and the figures as "20% PP", I think that will prevent any reader from being confused on the PP issue. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, can you start a new section, state exactly what your problem is there AND link that from the "talk" link in the tag's link in the article? 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OR discussion

Hi, just a note, I added a question of the OR of this article at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#question_as_to_bar_for_WP:OR. 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy, NPOV, OR Issues

The article suffers from clear OR and factual accuracy issues. As O18 points no, no source exactly replicates the table, it has been created via WP:Synthesis. Further, its making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Spending bills originate in the House, but the article implictly lays responsibility for spending in the executive branch. A table collating spending by who controlled Congress would be better (though still very problematic). The problem is that the entire article, down to the color-coding on the chart, is clearly designed to promote a particular point of view, rather than factually educating the reader. For instance, the majority of the spending increase in the 2005-2009 period happened when Obama took office in Jan 2009, but it's chalked up to Bush.

The largest problem of all is that federal fiscal years don't begin and end on presidential terms. Whenever a president is elected, they "inherit" a portion of the budet from the previous president, but can also work to make changes themselves (though as previously noted, Congress ultimately has more responsibility here). Trying to artificially align presidential terms to fiscal budgets just cannot be accurately done. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Since 1921, the President has proposed a budget... then the House starts the bills. Lets stay focused here on the OR/NPOV/Accuracy issues or you can try to argue that some source is not valid, but you really need to focus here. 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because no one source "exactly replicates the table" does not mean that a table is synthesis. In fact, we aren't supposed to exactly replicate tables from sources, as that would be a copyright violation. Synthesis involves combining materials from multiple sources to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Since the article does not state or imply any conclusion, stating only the data that is sourced from reliable sources, there is no synthesis. Additionally, even if the article were to baldly state that 'deficits are higher during Republican presidential terms', this would still be allowable as long as reliable sources are cited that have put forward the same position. LK (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Synthesis to generate the chart from multiple source
• Presidential terms cannot be aligned with federal fiscal budget years
• Responsibility for budget lies more with Congress than President.

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, if you are going to argue with sources, i.e., "Responsibility for budget lies more with Congress than President" you really need better sources, not just your say so. That is how this project works. Also, WP:synthesis is only about drawing conclusions (as Lawrencekhoo points out) so you need to point to what conclusions were drawn. Finally, except for in 2009, I don't think the alignment issue is a big deal, for that year, we can add a footnote. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the argument that this article is OR. I've just found this essay written by Professor Stephen Bloch of Adelphi University. Professor Bloch's essay presents tables that essentially duplicates the contents of this article. Professor Bloch's essay can be cited as an reliable external source for this article. LK (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LK / 0¹⁸, WP:SYN does not apply here. Dividing debt/GDP is a routine calculation. As LK states, only drawing "conclusions" via synthesis is forbidden. You'll have to point to specific instances of unsourced conclusions being draw, as I see none. On the second point, I thought we agreed that budget year = election year +2 is the first budget which is the responsibility of the incoming president. Is that not what you were advocating for above? To your third point, just because the president doesn't have 100% responsibility for the budget doesn't mean that there isn't significant responsibility. I do agree, however, that a similar chart plotted against the party which controlled Congress would be an interesting addition to the article.

I really think you need to read WP:CIVIL before commenting further. I'm well aware of how to calculate percentages (as is 0¹⁸ I'm sure). Insinuating that I'm not bright enough to calculate them properly is not only uncivil, but it completely misses the point. Just because you are unaware of a mathematical concept, doesn't mean it is a "glaring math error". If you do a bit of research, I'm sure you will find lots of instances of percentage points being used. TDL (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

well, it's a good sign that the article says that "political commentators" observe such a correlation, not Wikipedia on its own. But obviously the article then needs to be structured along the lines of the arguments of such political commentators as are cited. For each source, you need to consider

• is the source a WP:RS to begin with? (if the author has a long-standing wiki bio article, chances are that it is, otherwise be skeptical). I suppose it is fair to say the articles by David Stockman and Brad DeLong can be discussed, while I am unsure about Steve Stoft, Scott Willeke or Mike Kimel (explain why these are quotable blogs)
• what does the source actually say. Just saying "political commentators have noted a pattern" and then dump links to seven blog posts does nothing. It is the job of this article to explain who has noted which pattern. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

following my own advice, and saying what the "pattern" noted by the "political commentators" cited actually is, it emerges that the pattern is not Democrats vs. Republicans, but Neoconservatives (Reagan and Bushes) vs. everyone else. In the light of this, the entire arrangement of red-blue tables in this article is pure on-Wiki WP:SYNTH that doesn't in any way illustrate the "pattern" mentioned. The "pattern" or hypothesis under discussion here is "the Neoconservatives wrecked US finances". So please let the article actually discuss this instead of random party-line graphics.

if we think about this proposition for a minute, it makes excellent sense. If you combine the ideas of "lower taxes as much as possible for small government", and "build a giant military machine to impose democracy and capitalism worldwide, no matter what the cost", you shouldn't be surprised if your reduced income and your vastly increased expense results in a shaky budget. I am just saying that money tends to exhibit roughly additive properties. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Neoconservatives "wrecked" the budget? Wow, who knew that Barack Obama was a neoconservative. Obama makes Reagan and Bush look like Suze Orman, and at least there was excellent economic growth under Reagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2