Jump to content

Talk:History of the United States public debt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Including Obama

Can someone revise the graph to include a blue field for Obama's tenure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erowe1 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC) --Erowe1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The manual of style states that galleries shouldn't be used without good reason. I'm moving these graphs here. Please move them back in only if they are useful in illustrating the commentary in the article. LK (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Annual U.S. budget from 1901-2006, spending (red) and receipts (blue)
Gross debt as percentage of GDP from 1977-2007

Hopelessly biased and completely flawed

This entire article represents endless political chicanery and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Here are a few points of obvious bias:

1) Brad Delong is a well known left/progressive blogger and ideologue and the article should honestly identify this bias. Right/conservative presentation of the same data would result in a very different portrayal. The article should include the perspective of other economists on the ideological effect on deficits.

2) The debt held by the public is the better measure of debt than gross debt and is the measure used typically used in international comparisons. Gross debt counts future increased levels of entitlement payments as a liability even though these benefits are not a contractual obligation and can be changed at any time by the government.

3) The chart assigns the first year of a new president to the prior president. There is entirely arbitrary and unjustified. Congress and the president have the power to change the budget from day one and presidents often do make major changes to fiscal policy at the very start of their terms.

For example in February 2009, one month into his term, Obama signed a trillion dollar stimulus package passed by a completely Democrat controlled congress and yet this biased wiki article assigns that to Bush.

If we look at the debt/GDP from the day a president takes office, the debt/GDP increase more in the first 12 months of Obama's term than it did in the prior 8 years that George Bush was in office.

The political variables here are endless. Why limit the carryover to just one year? Obviously policies have effects that can last for decades and budgets go out for 10 years. If a budget from a prior president "traps" his predecessor, haven't the actions of the politicians who created and expanded entitlement promises trapped an entire generation of politicians?

4) The entire approach is problematic in determining the effect of congress. A much better methodology would be to combine the effects of presidential policies with congressional scorecards to see how much spending individual congressmen actually vote for. The type of analysis is more favorable to Republicans and doesn't show up, presumably because it doesn't fit the ideology behind this presentation.

5) The increase in the debt should be the increase in debt as a percentage of GDP and not the raw dollars or percentage increase of the debt itself. The increase as a percentage of the debt (as portrayed in the chart) exaggerates the increase when the debt is small so that going from 1% debt/GDP to 2% debt/GDP (a trivial increase) counts as a 100% increase, but going from 60% to 90% (a devastating increase) only counts as 50%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.248.20 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Back up those claims by citing reliable sources. Otherwise, we can only assume that it is original research, and that the cited reliablely sourced text shouldn't be changed. LK (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
On 5, you might want to check your math again. What you requested is already the way the table is. 018 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Why in the world is there a "commentary" section to begin with? What is supposed to be an encyclopedia doesn't need a section that is included solely to push its readers to arrive at a particular politically-loaded conclusion. Moreover, the breadth of opinion(that it is opinion should exclude it in the first place) in the commentary section is pathetic. Are we really to believe that the debt is solely because of tax cuts, with nothing owed to increasingly out-of-control spending, such as that seen under George W. Bush and, particularly, Obama? The commentary section needs to be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is FY 2009 still the source for the last table?

The historical tables for FY 2012 is the latest data available which includes data up through and including 2010, with projections out to 2016, but the table here is using data from the FY 2009 historical data publication. This seems horribly out of date. I'd like to update it, unless someone objects. Kettledrum (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Kettledrum

We shouldn't be using projections, but by all means please update the data to FY 2012. LK (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to revise it using audited data, but my five hours of work complete with references was voided. Ghanima1971 (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Calculating hypothetical revenue as a percentage of GDP required to balance spending, by presidency

With discussion in Congress of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, I was curious about what hypothetical adjusted revenue would have to be for a fiscal year such that adjusted debt would remain the same as it was in 1978 - the first fiscal year of the Carter administration. To determine that percentage for a fiscal year, I added adjusted spending to the increase in adjusted debt from the prior year and then divided that sum by adjusted GDP. When I averaged the resulting hypothetical adjusted revenue as a percentage of GDP over the fiscal years for a presidency, I got the following (lowest to highest): Clinton 20.27%, Carter 20.32%, G. W. Bush 22.37%, Reagan 25.67%, G. H. Bush 25.73%, and Obama (one fiscal year only) 41.33%. 71.241.197.20 (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

percentage vs percentage points

I just clarified the second table to make it clear that the "percentage increase" column is actually a percentage point increase column. For more information on the difference, see the percentage point wikipedia page. 018 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

second big table

The second big table needs some help. Its reference is hopelessly out of date. The 2012 budget (linked at the bottom of the page) should probably be used. They now use a 2005 reference year now, so it will take some doing to adjust all the numbers. Another possibility is to delete the whole thing. I think the first table is what the article is about (since it is by term). 018 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Another apparent error is the adjusted federal spending for 2010. I don't know what adjustment factor was applied, but 2010 is grossly inconsistent with 2000-2009. If $3,107 adjusts to $2,452 in 2009, how does $3,991 adjust to $2,392 in 2010? Unless I'm missing something, I'd estimate the correct number as $3,070. The % increase would have to be adjusted as well. --Pmkeating (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect percentage for Federal Debt, Percent Increase under Obama?

Why is the Federal Debt, Public Increase for 2010 listed as being 31.6%? The Federal Debt is listed as going from $8,218 to $9,247 which is around 12.5%, is it not?

The previous year 2009, the Federal Debt is listed as going from $7,793 to $8,218 which is correctly listed as being a 5.5% increase. Intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.70 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just forgot to update that when I updated the other info to go in line with the 2012 budget. The deflator column also needs to be updated. 018 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Messup on table

This makes no sense to me: On the table (under "Gross federal debt") the End Debt of Bush is listed at 69.5%, and the Start debt of Obama is listed at 84.2%. Something doesn't add up here! Notice how for every other president, the preceding present has the same End debt as his Start debt. I had to rate the page 1 star for Objective because let's face it someone's pulling the numbers for Obama... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.104.204 (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's because someone vandalized the table. It's been fixed. This page is a troll magnet for Bush apologists. LK (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Job

I've looked at this, and crunched the numbers myself in the past, and find it very informative. Your presentation is well done. It shows where the deficit, debt, and spending increases are in the most clear way possible (although I do like graphs.) It is well sourced, clear, and accurate.

As a possible suggestion, perhaps the title should be changed, since spending is included, as well as deficit. It might also be helpful to show congressional makeup for spending increases, since they do approve the budget. I haven't been able to find a correlation between congressional makeup and spending, but showing the numbers (even without a clear correlation) might be helpful.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.105.68 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, be bold and add this to the article. 018 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Many of the points made in the article and throughout the discussion are valid. The facts are clear to those that lived through the administrations: Democrats leaned toward balanced budgets while Republicans balanced massive military spending with tax cuts. If the graph bears up that observation, it passes the acid test. Revisionist history has no place in the Wiki project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutsh (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good to look at the data rather than trust "conventional wisdom". The arguments that how transition years is "unfair" are handled is certainly valid - but only to an extent. There isn't a truly fair way to do it concisely and accurately. This is the best I've seen, thanks. and thanks especially to whoever produced and changed the "National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms" chart. Much, much, better - but the 82nd and 84th congress's (both houses) had a democratic majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.46.127 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed it. -- Vision Thing -- 18:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

transition year methodology

Won't it be appropriate to assign the 1st quarter of a transition year (e.g. FY 2009) to an outgoing president and the rest to the incoming one?

Treasury Direct web site allows anyone to compute debt between any 2 dates, so it should be a problem to get the numbers right. So, Obama's increase in debt (02/20/2009 - 08/01/2011) will be 14.342T - 10.838T = 3.5T

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.70.18 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually, the outgoing President proposed the budget for the following year and while changes can be made, they are often relatively minor. This was not the case in 2009, it is true. But there is no perfect way of dealing with this. A discussion on this page decided to use the current method. Please look at this page and maybe its archives for the discussion. 018 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there is not perfect way, but there is a better way and a fare way -- to impute the debt based on days in office. So, you blame almost a trillion of additional Obama's debt on Bush? You can't be serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.70.18 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A trillion??? Do you have a reliable source for Bush's original budget as requested, plus the emergency spending for the wars, TARP, and other things, also demanded by Bush, and any reason whatsoever to believe that the total is "almost a trillion" dollars less than what the Obama administration administrated? You can't be serious. The President (in this case Obama) was required to administrate (spend) the money budgeted before he took office by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Obama "was required" by Bush to spend 787 Bil of Stimulus money? He signed that into law in Feb 2009 So, here is an "almost a trillion" for you, and they've burnt through that cash in no time, haven't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.168.7 (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a fairer way would be include all budgeted and spending requested by the outgoing President in his listing, and new "stuff" with the incoming President. But, what about the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that Bush handled "off budget" since their inception? Clearly, after 7-8 years that should have been "on budget". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.105.68 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how many IPS are writing this, but (at least) one of you is thinking about just Obama. Think about when George W. Bush took office, most of the 2001 spending was dictated by Bill Clinton. But he did make tax cuts that took immediate effect and those might be better credited to George W. Bush. Ideally, a secondary source would publish this table but dig out these details. Remember, there was a huge existing deficit when Obama took office based on budgets by Bush. It's also not clear who to blame / give credit to for economic growth, but here we give it to the President who signed the most recent budget. 018 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that other people reached the same conclusion I did: assign the transition fiscal year entirely to the outgoing administration. It's not a perfect solution, but in most years it's fairly accurate (2009 being perhaps an exception), and it's simple, transparent, and consistent, thus reducing the temptation for political bias. BTW, I decided on that rule in early 2004, before I or most Americans had heard of Barack Obama, so it really wasn't an attempt to whitewash Obama. Sbloch (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is called "National debt by U.S. presidential terms" but it deals only with post-World War II period in order to prove a point from partisan commentators. Also its main sources are blogers who are leftist or Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.96.123 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone could add the missing data from the start of George Washington's administration until the start of World War II, that would be great. However, using the data currently in the article -- data from the previous one-quarter of the United States' 222-year history of U.S. presidents -- isn't exactly cherry-picking to make partisan points. Indeed, during the 64 years covered in the the article's table, Republicans were in White House 55 percent of the time, which mathematically should have swayed the data in their favor. So, if the the data make one or the other of the two political parties look bad, then, as Walter Cronkite used to say, 'That's the way it is.' And as for whether or not whoever posted the data was partisan, Republican or Democrat, don't shoot the messenger. The only valid question, as per discussions above, is whether or not the data are neutral and hence valid. Vcrosbie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC).
I agree with Vcrosbie. -Trift (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My page at [1] goes back to 1909, using the Consumer Price Index for inflation adjustment. It includes raw figures by fiscal year, as well as by Presidential administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbloch (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

FY2010 in the "Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP" section

I was reviewing the row for FY2010 in the table in the section titled "Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP" and noticed that it suffers from unclear sourcing. Some of the values come from the estimates from the 2009 budget source, but others come from the actual values given in the 2012 budget source. The table itself does not reference the 2012 budget source, and the footnotes currently state that values came from the 2009 estimates. However, it seems to me like it would be better to switch over to the actual numbers from the 2012 source. Sadly, I am not a dedicated enough Wikipedian to resolve this, so I'm just leaving a note here. 128.29.43.2 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

and... that is why it stays that way. 018 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Exactly what is the disagreement about neutrality? I will remove the tag soon unless there is a talk page discussion on the issue. LK (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, neutrality problem is that proponents of idea that there is a special connection between Republican presidents and debt level are leftist or liberals but in the article they are described as economists. I think that nobody is arguing that conclusions based on 5n and 3n samples have any statistical significance, so the fact that they are economists is irrelevant because they are not making an argument based on scientific methods. They are making a purely partisan argument based on their political beliefs and they should be described from that position (as partisans - liberals).
Also, the article is called "National debt by U.S. presidential terms" but it is talking only about last 40 years and the rising level of debt to GDP ratio under Republican presidents. Article has a neutral title but it currently serves only as a POV fork. -- Vision Thing -- 19:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately as stated previously, the data collected before World War II wasn't extremely available. The data does go back to 1941 though, which would be 70 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.170.155 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly notes that this pattern between debt and Republican presidents has been observed by both conservative and liberal economists. Is the argument that facts aren't neutral? That's clearly not right. If I surmise correctly then, the main non-neutrality argument is that this article only looks at the last 50 years, whereas, according to the title, we should look at the full history of the US? If so, perhaps we should change the title to "National debt and U.S. presidential terms since World War II". LK (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we can leave it with this title until we get additional data and then can maybe have separate pages for various eras. As for the neutrality question, it seems some people don't like the facts, that is just too bad. If you can point to a reliable source that has another perspective, then that source should be included. Until then, the objections raised appear to be more about a disagreement with reality than with the article. 018 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Problem is not in article name but in its content. POV forks are caracterized by presenting (fringe) arguments for a single perspective. Except for the sources for raw data, only sources in the article are blogs and op-eds. There is not one academic source that talks about this "connection" and no wonder because as we have seen during recent debates, presidents have limited influence on the debt levels. Without full approval of the Congress there can be no long-term increase in national debt.
What conservatives? First, Bruce Bartlett is no longer a conservative and second, I have looked into the links provided for claim attributed to him and they don't support it. In Forbes opinion piece there is only one mention of debt and it is only about decrease of debt/GDP ratio during Einsehover, he is not making a connection between Republican presidents in general and increase in debt ratio. Neither he nor Stockman make an argument about increase of debt under last three Republican Presidents, and decreased under former five Democratic Presidents. That point can only be sourced to liberal blogs. -- Vision Thing -- 16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I found plenty of support in the Bruce Bartlet piece for the characterization provided in the article. Saying that only "liberal bloggers" do this is just nonsense. I think you thought the article ended when an ad crossed the page, there are a lot more below that.
At any rate, lets try to work out acceptable text here together and then put it on the page. 018 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please provide some quotes that support your claims and name sources other that liberal bloggers who see causality between party affiliation of the president and the level of debt. -- Vision Thing -- 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
BLP demands that any descriptor associated with a person's name has to be well sourced. The descriptors that are there now are well sourced, e.g. "Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush". To change that to "Bruce Bartlett, liberal blogger", there had better be an impeccable source for such a change.
Coming back to the main point, there is no neutrality argument that I can see for the whole article. Since facts are by definition neutral, I suggest removing the neutrality tag. LK (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are sources for DeLong as the liberal blogger NYT WP. As for Kimel, I haven't be able to find anything reliable about him. That makes me wonder how notable he and his views are...
Let me repeat main unaddressed neutrality concerns:
  • whole lead is based on two partisan blog posts;
  • people whose arguments are presented are not described by their political beliefs;
  • content attributed to Bartlett shouldn't be in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 20:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If I read this right then, the only neutrality objection is about the lead and commentary, not the article itself. I'm going to rewrite the lead to remove the commentary and move the neutrality tag to the commentary section. LK (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed claims attributed to Bartlett because requested quotes to support them were not provided. -- Vision Thing -- 18:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? What request? Bartlett's views are well documented. Please read the sources in the text. LK (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see Bartlett is not talking about Republican presidents (except for Bush jr.) in his articles. -- Vision Thing -- 18:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Barlett's comments are cited and relevant. The reason you give for removal doesn't stand up to examination. If you read the Bartlett article cited, it's clear that he's talking about the increase in debt since the days of Reagan. For example he says, "During Jimmy Carter's administration, some Republicans, like Rep. Jack Kemp of New York, began to rebel against their party's balanced budget orthodoxy." He also talks about 'Starve the beast', a policy that started under Reagan. Please stop removing Bartlett's comments because you just don't like it. LK (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Form your quote it is clear that he is talking about Republicans in the Congress and not Republican presidents, unless you claim that Carter is a Republican. -- Vision Thing -- 08:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
He was talking about Republicans. He was also talking about Reagan and Bush, are they presidents? Stop removing CITED material with dubious reasoning because you just don't like it. You're behavior is bordering on vandalism. It's clear that you've been here editing with an agenda. Edit neutrally or not at all. LK (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Claims can have citations and not be relevant for the article. This is article about national debt under US presidents and Bartlett is not talking about Republican presidents. For example, George H.W. Bush did exactly opposite of following starve the beast policy.
Also, in the future please refrain from personal attacks. -- Vision Thing -- 19:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Pointing out that a person is breaking policy is not a personal attack. Accusing someone of a personal attack when they have not made one is a personal attack. It's pretty clear to me that you are removing something you don't like while making unreasonable arguments for doing so. Since you refuse to stop, I'll call for more comments, which seems to me a waste of time. LK (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Explaining this revert

This revert was done because the sources do not support the statement that "Under Obama U.S. national debt has increased more rapidly than under any other U.S. president." When looking at Debt over GDP, which is what this page is about, the table below shows that this is not true. Secondly, blogs and commentary even hosted by CNN and CBS, are not reliable for hard economic data that can be obtained from government sources. I'm going to re-add the sources, but worded as the observations of the two commentators, not as hard fact. LK (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added this: "Journalists Jack Cafferty and Mark Knoller have noted that in dollar terms, the US national debt has increased more rapidly under President Obama than under any other U.S. president.[8] During the Obama administration as of August 2011 debt was increasing at a pace of $3 million a minute." I'm somewhat minded to remove it, because, as I noted above, this page is about the debt GDP ratio, not about the dollar value of the debt. LK (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are more or less fine. I only don't agree with your interpretation of the scope of this article. In accordance with its title it should be talking about debt in general, not just about one ratio. -- Vision Thing -- 21:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I added a note that it is in nominal dollars, looking that the Table FDR had a much faster increase in WW II, clearly using real dollars could/would change the analysis substantially. 018 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominal debt measures

I suggest removing commentary about nominal dollar debt, nominal dollar debt measures are not generally used by economists, as they are generally meaningless. Debt burden is measured using the debt GDP ratio, or sometimes by looking at real inflation-adjusted debt rather than nominal debt. LK (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It may not be worth throwing out the baby with the bath water, I don't think such a blanket rule makes sense.018 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Noted, but there is no need to make a big deal about it in the lead. LK (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated changes to tables

This page has been the target of vandalism for some time now. I tried to figure which of the last 2 week's edits was accurate, which was OR, what was vandalism, and couldn't sort it out. I've reverted it. As a courtesy, before changing any of the figures in the tables. could you please justify your edits on the talk page? Also, please use reliable sources, which for this page, would be official government statistics, not opinion pages or position papers from private think tanks. LK (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in the Commentary concerning national debt increase.

US national debt has increased more rapidly under President Obama than under any other U.S. is incorrect and obviously the sources of this statement are completely biased toward the conservatives. Using the graph, it plainly shows the national debt substantially rising under G.W. Bush. President Obama has clearly raised the debt less than 2 trillion dollars and spending has actually decreased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.113.140 (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So Mark Knoller "obviously" has a conservative bias? How did you figure that one out? 38.98.70.18 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a reasonable basis for saying "US national debt has increased more rapidly under President Obama than under any other U.S. President": the second- and third-highest deficit years on record have been since he took office, and the highest was the transition year from GWB to Obama. OTOH, one could be equally justified in saying "US Federal deficits have decreased more rapidly under President Obama than under any other U.S. President": after growing by $1,384 billion from fiscal 2007 to fiscal 2009, the annual deficit shrank by $656 billion from 2009 to 2011. After adjusting for inflation, that's 8 times the rate of deficit reduction under Clinton, and slightly more than the rate under Truman (at the end of WWII). There's enough to make people of all political persuasions happy :-) Sbloch (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Should Bruce Bartlett's view on the US debt be included?

There is a dispute as to whether Bruce Bartlett's view on the US debt should be included or excluded from the article's Commentary section:

Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast" and an aversion for tax increases.[1][2][3][4]

Should this sentence be excluded from the article? LK (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bartlett, Bruce (2009-09-04). "We Need A Party Of Fiscal Responsibility". Forbes magazine. forbes.com. Retrieved 28 July 2011. Believing that his father's defeat in 1992 was the result of his having raised taxes in 1990, Bush the younger was determined never to make that mistake.
  2. ^ Bartlett, Bruce (2010-11-26). "Starve the Beast: Just Bull, not Good Economics". The Fiscal Times. Retrieved 22-10-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Bartlett, Bruce (2011-05-07). "Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast'". Forbes.com. Retrieved 22 October 2011.
  4. ^ Trader, Mark (2011-07-27). "Economic - Another Old School Republican (Bruce Bartlett) Says Heavy Tax Cuts are Large Contributor to Deficit". International Business Times. ibtimes.com. Retrieved 28 July 2011.

—Note: Citations added. LK (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • My objection to including disputed sentence is that it misrepresents Bruce Bartlett's views. Sentence implies that Bartlett thinks that all three Republican presidents since the 1980s followed the policy of "starve the beast" and were agains any tax increases. But that is misrepresenting Bartlett's view. For example he says: "Liberals believe that enactment of the 1981 tax cut marked the end of Republican opposition to deficits. But in fact Reagan was much more orthodox than either they or most conservatives think. Beginning in 1982, he supported higher taxes almost every year of his presidency." [2] and in this article he also praises George H.W. Bush: "Budget experts now agree [that George H.W. Bush's budget deal] deserves much of the credit for the subsequent improvement in the deficit, which shrank from 4.7 percent of GDP in 1992 to virtual balance in 1997 and gave us budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001. Economist Robert Reischauer, director of the Congressional Budget Office when the 1990 budget deal was enacted, told me it was “the foundation upon which the surpluses of the 1998 to 2001 period were built.” [...]the elder Bush will remain the last Republican who took fiscal responsibility seriously." -- Vision Thing -- 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a different reason than what Vision Thing was arguing earlier. If this is the only objection, clearly the sentence can be rewritten to answer the objection. Since Bruce Bartlett's views are notable, they should not be summarily deleted. Just rewrite to answer the objection. LK (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

There is no argument about, "Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush". So, the question is, does Bartlett believe that "increase in the national debt since the 1980s" is due to "the policy of 'starve the beast' and an aversion for tax increases"? LK (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what Bartlett says on the 'starve the beast':

[In the late-1970s] the Laffer Curve gave Republicans a fig leaf that allowed them to support a big tax cut without abandoning their support for a balanced budget. ... Serious Republican economists like Herb Stein and Alan Greenspan ... basically thought it was nonsense. They needed something more grounded in reality. "Starving the beast" provided it. ... Ronald Reagan liked this idea, and it was a key reason why he adopted Kemp's tax cut as his principal economic plank in the 1980 campaign. When questions were raised about its viability, Reagan responded that his tax cut would starve the beast.

Here is what Bartlett says about aversion to taxes:

Believing that his father's defeat in 1992 was the result of his having raised taxes in 1990, Bush the younger was determined never to make that mistake. ... Taxes were cut willy-nilly throughout the Bush years, and spending shot up for wars, new entitlement programs and any Republican-sponsored pork barrel project. Bush left office with a deficit of 3.2% of GDP--a reversal of 5.6% of GDP compared to the surplus he inherited.

LK, does this means that you agree that sentence should not be in the article in this form? Basically, Bartlett is arguing that only Republican president (and this is an article about US presidents) who consistently followed "starve the beast policy" and was against tax increases was Bush jr. and not all Republican presidents since 1980s as sentence currently implies. -- Vision Thing -- 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a fierce amount of OR you got there. Republicans have been selling starve the beast since the late-70s. It's essentially why the US has the debt it has. Bartlett makes that point throughout the article. LK (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is an article about national debt under different US presidents. Only Republican president that fully accepted STB according to Bartlett is Bush Jr. -- Vision Thing -- 17:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
In the cites you give Bartlett ascribes STB only to Reagan, and that seems to be equivocal as to whether it's a policy or an excuse. Aversion to tax increases are not mentioned, specifically tax cuts for both presidents are mentioned and increased spending for one. From what you quote (although I'm sure there's more) the only conclusion that could be given is that "B~ concludes tax cuts and increased spending led to a budget deficit under Bush jr.". Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
Please do read the article. It's pretty clear that he's talking about deficits from the 1980s onwards, not just under Bush II. Also, a cursory look at the history of US budget deficits show that deficits were large under both Reagan/Bush I as well as Bush II (albeit larger under Bush II). Bartlett does write more critically of Bush II, but blaming it all on Bush II seems to me to be inappropriate. Also, he spends a large part of the article criticizing 'starve the beast', and has often been a vocal critic of starve the beast, leaving that out also seems inappropriate. Its easy to cite, just google bartlett "starve the beast". I've added a couple of Bartlett's articles to the cites. --LK (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think he blames it all on Bush II, but it is important to be careful saying he ascribes specific mantras such as STB to all three, without being able to source it - if it's verifiable from the articles, fine. I do notice that the latest Forbes one is not particularly well written (although not the mess of the IBtime article) and wonder if it might be better to cite, rather than his particular commentary on the events, his commentary on the scientific works by Bill Niskanen and Michael New. Rich Farmbrough, 22:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC).

LK, it is highly disingenuous of you to include same misleading content about Bartlett's views by stealth after this discussion. -- Vision Thing -- 22:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is highly disingenuous of you to claim any consensus to this RFC when only one person has commented, and in a non-conclusive way. There is NOTHING in this RFC that justifies your continued removal of sourced material -- including about many issues that are completely unrelated to this RFC. LK (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I claim that there isn't consensus for inclusion. You are only person who is arguing for it. Rich Farmbrough said "only conclusion that could be given is that "B~ concludes tax cuts and increased spending led to a budget deficit under Bush jr."" -- Vision Thing -- 09:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no feedback on noticeboard I have added [3] text. It keeps Bartlett's opinion while better reflecting it in my opinion. -- Vision Thing -- 11:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Crucial Data Removed

In addition to a few responses I made to the other topics addressed, the three columns that were removed are GDP, Beginning and Ending Debt. These really need to be added so that the entire table becomes more valid. Not only would it allow users to easily find the information they seek when they look up national debt, but allow them to check it against their own data. The table becomes meaningless when the data is removed. Ghanima1971 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I came here looking for ending debt numbers. Why remove them? Gearspring (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of POV material from the New York Times and Obama Administration

Surely it is imbalanced when we have our main sources as

1) a newspaper that hasn't endorsed a Republican candidate since Eisenhower 2) a democratic Administration

I mean seriously, would it be NPOV if everything came from Dick Cheney and Fox News? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I don't understand your concern. Is it honestly that the information is coming from the New York Times and the Federal Government? -Achowat (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have information on partisan political questions from a newspaper that will stoop to the level of supporting an attempt to frame innocent criminal defendants. And we are backing it up with statements from political appointees of an Administration which claimed that there was no political involvement at Solyndra, and that Inspector Walpin was fired because he was "confused" and "disoriented."

Does that represent a neutral point of view?

In the article we are not 'taking sides' on any Partisan Political issues, just merely stating the facts that help frame a partisan political discussion, which I'm sure you can agree is different. We're not getting this from the Cato Institute or the Daily Worker, we're getting this from the US Federal Government and the New York Times. I'm sorry, but the fact that you may disagree with some of the openly political statements of the Editorial Board does not make the news reported in the Times POV. -Achowat (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the whole point is that the study cited does not refer to facts; it refers to the NYT's interpretation of facts, which is another matter entirely. And you seem to be ignoring the whole multiple-front-page-articles-supporting-a-frame-of-three-rape-defendants-in-spite-of-videotape-of-one-of-them-at-another-location-while-the-"crime"-was-supposedly-occurring angle. Are you comfortable with taking at face value reporting from a newspaper that did that? 140.177.205.223 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the NYT is widely accepted as a reliable source, and so is the US government. If you wish to argue otherwise, I suggest taking it up at the appropriate venue, the reliable sources noticeboard. LK (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Congress session or president?

Recently, the table in the section History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#Historical_debt_levels was changed to replace the name of the sitting president with the congress session number. In my opinion, this makes the table less informative, as people seldom refer to the congress session number, but they often refer to the presidential term of such and such a president. I can see no reason for such a change, as it makes the dates more obscure rather than clearer. LK (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to censor out who the president was in the table, so I shall reintroduce it unless there are reasonable objections? LK (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

President proposes the Budget?

This is simply patently false based on Article 1, Section 7. The 'source' for the idea that the President proposes the Budget is a treeware source, and I thoroughly doubt the veracity of that, again based on what the Constitution actually says. In fact, the [abstract] listed for the source (#9 in the References) starts with "Unlike the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which required the President to play a central role in the budget process, recent reforms in the Budget Act of 1974 and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Acts of 1985 and 1987 take the spotlight off the President's personal role." What opposition do people have to removing the comments that imply that the President, and not the Congress, writes the Budget. -Achowat (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just read the paper. The main trust of it is that the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Acts of 1985 and 1987 blurred responsibility for the budget, leading to higher deficits. Before 1985, the President took personal responsibility for the budget, not in detail, but in aggregate. However, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Acts blurred that responsibility, to the detriment of the process. I quote "the political process works best when Congress receives from the President a budget which presents responsible totals for aggregates (especially total spending and the level of the deficit), with the understanding that Congress will generally live within those aggregates while rearranging the priorities". It seems clear that the paper supports the statement that "President proposes the budget for the government to the US Congress. Congress may change the budget, but it rarely appropriates more than what the President requests" for before 1985, but that the process since is more uncertain. How about rewriting the paragraph to reflect this? LK (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Reagan

I'm removing this content about Reagan because it is not supported by sources. First source says: "Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter -- and a smidge above the 40-year average today." [4]. Second article by Krugman (which btw shouldn't be used as a source without attribution) says: "To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people." So neither attributes change in debt to his tax policy. -- Vision Thing -- 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are cherry picking and misrepresenting the content. It's clear from the articles, (and widely accepted in economics), that Reagan lowered taxes and increased military spending, leading to an increase in the deficit. Why else did the deficit rise so dramatically in the 1980s?
Also, you are removing other sourced and properly cited information without any reason except your own political bias. You are removing material just because you don't like it, and elsewhere arguing for the inclusion of highly questionable things because they support your political bias. LK (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Please provide quotes from sources that support your view and refrain from personal attacks. -- Vision Thing -- 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Read the sources. They are short. BTW, pointing out that you are editing in a biased way, and that you are breaking policy, is not a personal attack, the statement "You are a heartless propaganda-pushing right-wing baby killer, who would cut taxes for billionaires rather than provide healthcare for low-income mothers" is a personal attack. Kindly note the difference. LK (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I read the sources and I don't agree with your interpretation of them. So I'm asking you to provide specific quotes on which you base your conclusions, like I did above. -- Vision Thing -- 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent Graph

The time series of US public debt with partisan affiliations appears to be inconsistent with the last paragraph in the section "After World War II." The debt in the paragraph rises to ~10trillion in 2008, but the graph doesn't even get to 10 trillion by 2010. The GDP % looks OK in some spots, but also seems wrong towards the end. Maybe public debt is different than gross public debt? Is the graph showing, a "net public debt"? Either way, if they are different, it should be discussed somewhere and if they are the same it needs to be fixed. I'd do it if I had the data and if I knew what was going on. Best! Bjf624 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That is because it uses estimates from the 2009 US Budget that proved to be wrong by a large margin. It needs to be updated with data from the 2012 US Budget. Now it is highly misleading and it shouldn't be in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 09:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor Error (typo?)

Sorry to add this here, rather than just correct it. I can't figure out what the intended meaning of this sentence is: "Federal spending under President George W. Bush remained at around 40% of GDP during his two terms in office" From the first graph, spending increased from about 18% to 24% of GDP. If I changed the word spending to debt, it contradicts the previous sentence that states debt increased from about 35% to 40% of GDP. Great article in general. WaywardGeek (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass changes without discussion

I have serious problems with [5], but it's impossible to discuss a whole swath of changes. I'm happy to take them one at a time. Let's start with the first, the lede. The lede should summarize the article. "Debt as a share of the US economy peaked just after World War II, but then fell. In recent years sharp increases in deficits and the resulting increases in debt have led to heightened concern about the long-term sustainability of the federal government's fiscal policies," does not summarize the article, and lends undue weight to a very recent "concern," a concern that the article is not even about. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We have two sections that talk about recent increase in debt, 2011 credit rating downgrade and Causes of recent changes in debt, which make more than half of the article's text content. Is one sentence in the lead about it undue weight? Not under any Wikipedia criteria. On the other hand, your preferred version talks about change in debt in relation to presidents and summarizes one section that is relatively small part of the article.
Your other changes are removing properly sourced content which you or LK accepted in previous versions, and are including unsourced statement and graph to which other user objected in section above. -- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The lede is exceptionally short. The excerpt from above was nearly half of it. If you'd like to start with a different section, I'm happy to do that. If you'd like to change the current lede to remove the presidential mentions, we could discuss that instead. Is that what you'd like? Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Lead should be longer, and I see no reason not to include both statements in some form. -- Vision Thing -- 12:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Propose a longer lede on this talk page and we can discuss it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
"Debt as a share of the US economy reached a maximum during World War II near the end of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's last Harry Truman's first presidential term. Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-WWII period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. The debt burden has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. In recent years sharp increases in deficits and the resulting increases in debt have led to heightened concern about the long-term sustainability of the federal government's fiscal policies." Do you have any objections? -- Vision Thing -- 12:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with the weight you are placing on the "long-term sustainability of the federal government's fiscal policies," but I'll relent. I notice you've reverted to your preferred version of the article yet again. I will not let that stand. Pick another section to discuss, and find consensus before reverting. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You are implying that somehow your version of the article is consensus one. It's not. I have stated two objections to your preferred version (unsourced statement and graph) to which you haven't responded and in the meantime you haven't stated why are you removing properly sourced statements, including those which LK accepted. -- Vision Thing -- 15:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You have two objections, but you engaged in a wholesale revert. This is a continuation of your slow-mo edit warring, which is endemic, and problematic. It will be adressed elsewhere. Of course, you've attempted to game 3rr, so unless you self revert, we'll see if admins are interested in your 4rr in 25 hours or not. Your call. Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Note that except for introduction, on which we quickly made a compromise, you haven't made one objection to content which you are removing. And now instead of engaging in discussion you are making threats. Nice... -- Vision Thing -- 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You win! I'm totally exhausted by your constant reverting. Do whatever you want. Hopefully someone with more patience than me will deal with you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
VT, your last revert again removed cited material that you removed not because it's not true, but because you don't like it. Kindly don't remove cited relevant material. LK (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing repetition. Your version says: "Debt relative to GDP rose rapidly during the 1980s under president Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies increased military spending and lowered tax rates." and then one sentence after "Ronald Reagan promoted increased military spending and lower tax rates". Same with "As a result, debt held by the public as a share of GDP had increased from 24,6% in 1974 and 26,2% in 1980 to 41% by the end of the 1980s." and "Debt held by the public had declined from 28% to 26% of GDP in the 1970s, by contrast, it rose to 41% of GDP by the end of the 1980s." This is all in the same paragraph.
On the other hand, you are removing "In 1974 Congressional Budget Act reformed budget process in order to allow Congress to challenge the president's budget more easily and as a consequence deficit became increasingly difficult to control." which is sourced to Why Budgets Matter: Budget Policy and American Politics, and reinserting misleading graph based on wrong data (see section above). -- Vision Thing -- 11:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you look properly. You are not accurately discussing the changes. I am removing nothing. You are removing cited relevant info for no reasonable reason. Stop it. LK (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
What does "You are not accurately discussing the changes" exactly mean? You are not responding to stated objections at all... -- Vision Thing -- 09:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the data for FY 2012 ?

Where is the data for FY 2012 ? (Thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.71.150 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

deleted incorrect graph

I deleted this graph [6] from the article, because as the linked page says, the year labels are incorrect after 1980. (compare with the source [7] page 6.) The article has other correctly labeled graphs showing the same information.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been fixed, so I put it back in.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Obama graphs

Most of the graphs on this page that include Obama are incorrectly including the 2009 budget numbers as being his. The 2009 budget was passed before he was sworn into office. The federal budget starts on October 1st.--Toyotabedzrock (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Obama signed $862 Billion stimulus, which was not included in the budget. I did revised the table using $15.007 T/$14.961 T (debt/GDP) in percent at end of fiscal year 2011, noting that the US debt on January 20, 2009 was $10.627 Trillion. I thought since 2011 Fiscal year ended, those ending numbers be included. They can be revised when 2011 ends. Ghanima1971 (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, I added a note to the chart explaining that this sort of discrepancy is possible, and giving your point as an example. However, I did not change the chart data. I don't think anyone would be likely to challenge the fact that the stimulus was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress at the beginning of the Obama administration and was signed into law by President Obama, but if anyone wants to add a citation for the fact here's one. - Embram (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Tax rates are not the same as tax revenues.

In more than one place tax rates are cites (usually rate cuts) which are blamed for subsequent increases in debt. However, the rate cuts in at least two instances led to *increases in revenue* and thus cannot be the cause of increased debt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.7.206 (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Archives

This Talk Page appears on Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages so I tried to archive older comments but I have never seen such a messed up Talk Page. Comments don't appear in chronological order, people in 2011 respond to comments in a 2009 thread, it's just a mess, especially the very first thread at the top of the page. There should be at least one more archive created but I will leave that to Talk Page watchers to sort out as this article is not on my own watchlist. Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that an auto archive with a period of 6 months or a year would work. Looking at WP:archive, it looks a bit complicated to set up, but I may have a go at it in the next week or so if someone with more experience doesn't do it first.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Done now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is it now?

Readers might be interested to know where the money borrowed by the Fed Govt is now. What is the relationship between the Natl Debt and the Money Supply? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is the early history?

This article is supposed to be about history, yet details about US debt pre-civil war are deplorably scanty. This article could use some expansion. Issue313 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Chart for After World War II

The chart for After World War II is great in that it has specific Presidents labeled, but only goes through 2010. Should we use this version through 2014 instead? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President_(1940_to_2012).png Ideally, someone could update the 2010 version to include the new numbers, but I don't really know how to do that with Google Sheets.
-SColombo (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Dazedbythebell (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Chart for "Changes in debt by political affiliation"

The chart under "Changes in debt by political affiliation" is very outdated. It has numbers only through 2008 so it is behind by 1.5 presidential terms & pre-dates the current economic crisis. There are two charts which have this same data, updated through 2014, but they're not overlayed on top of each other like the existing chart. The charts are:

Someone could attempt to overlay them to get a direct replacement for the previous image, but it also seems sufficient to just replace the single image with the 2 images.
-SColombo (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Charts need a column for party in control of Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.79.7.57 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for revision of first two paragraphs

The first two paragraphs of this entry are fully uncited and end with the sentence fragment "Public debt rose sharply in the wake of the 2007–08 financial crisis and the resulting significant tax revenue declines and spending increases." 128.230.38.43 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the United States public debt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the United States public debt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Gross Public Debt vs Gross Govt Debt

It's confusing that there is an article for Public Debt and an article for US national debt. Is it true that Public Debt never refers to gross US national debt? If that's the case then I think much of this article should be changed and should only focus on aspects that are unique to Public Debt vs National Debt.

One example is that the second graph on the page is of US National Debt and probably shouldn't be on this page (side issue is that it misleadingly looks like the title "Public debt as % of GDP" applies to the second graph.

What do people think? Would they be okay with larger changes to this wiki to remove most of the discussion which belongs in US national debt and consolidate them potentially into just a single article? Emschorsch (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_United_States_public_debt/Archive_2&oldid=1034343765"