Talk:2011 United States debt-ceiling crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

News

This reads like news. The style of writing and language are such that this is clearly in the present. Words like "now" and "could have", "potential", etc. and even the headers themselves (say "Consequences of not raising the debt ceiling") will be hopelessly out of date within a month. The article needs the authors to rewrite them with an eye to how the article will read in the future. For example, "Feared consequences of not raising the debt ceiling" and altering other language to take it out of the present and put it in a past context. Folks made a good start on it and I wouldn't want the work to become moot in a few weeks or months. Bw022 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in part, as you said, it reads as it does simply because the nature of the topic is current, and shouldn't the article reflect the present nature of the issue? Such as the consequences it could have; we do not yet know whether we will need to change it to "the debt ceiling default had these consequences" or "failure to raise the debt ceiling could have had these consequences." So rather than change it now, shouldn't we wait to revisit and amended it, as needed, as time passes (switching to past tense) and as the situation evolves or is resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.221.123 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Many ongoing news articles employ the present tense. (See, for example, News International phone hacking scandal and Tea Party movement.) As the article matures, more and more present verbs will be changed to past tense until, finally, when the issue that engendered the article has been resolved, the article's tense will be changed to all in the past.

But right now, the debt ceiling crisis is an ongoing news story and there just is no good way to phrase the lead sentence except in the present tense. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section

Debt Ceiling Elimination

Re: "the ongoing debate over whether the debt ceiling should be increased (or eliminated)" - I don't think there is any serious discussion on eliminating the debt ceiling. I believe it was mentioned in a Moody's report but other than that I have not heard anymore about it. Is there any serious discussion by the politicians on this? If not, I think "or eliminated" needs to be removed here and in other parts of the article.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is serious debate on eliminating the debt ceiling. Whilst I agree that eliminating it legislatively isn't a realistic legislative, you do have important and influential actors supporting it - Moody's, various center-left commentators (I can remember John Chait and the The American Prospect both suggested it a while ago); but, I agree, Congress voting to eliminate is not a serious possibility. Eliminating it by declaring it unconstitutional is. Bill Clinton supports that option, as do many, varied commentators, as the section on the debt ceiling's constitutionality shows. It gets eliminated if it is unconstitutional, so it is a part of the debate - if it wasn't, then maybe it MIGHT be worth getting rid (although, you still have people arguing for) - but it is a serious part of the debate: constitutional elimination, not legislative elimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.221.123 (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Have the main actors (Congressional leaders, President Obama) been discussing eliminating the debt ceiling? If not, it should be removed from the Lead Section. It can be discussed later in the article. If the same threshold is used for other factors in the debate, the lead section would be superflous and not provide any value.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll reconsider expanding my replies later, but I'm short on time, but I'll briefly mention somethings. 1) The debate is occuring not just among those with the power to change it, but among others, including influential public figures in their own right e.g. Bill Clinton, Moody's, bloggers and columnists of high-circulation publications (The Nation, The Financial Times, NYT, TNR, etc.). Granting for the sake of argument that they're not 'main actors,' which I disagree with (as those with significant impact on the public debate - like former presidents and columnists for large publications - seem to me to ought to be counted); main actors (by your definition) have/are considering it - e.g. Obama has and (at least some) Senate (and House?) Democrats advocate it. - will follow up with Source later today, hopefully. And 2) even if they hadn't, eliminating the ceiling would still be a solution to the crisis. It ought to be acknowledged as such, even if it wasn't being considered; but it, in fact, is, so this is moot. 115.188.221.123 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If bloggers and columnists are the threshold to make something heavy weight and a point in the Lead Section, then there have been many different suggestions such that the Debt Ceiling be reduced. The lead section should only contain the major points of the article and eliminating the debt ceiling is not one. Putting it into the lead section is pushing a Point Of View trying to say that it is a major part of the discussion.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I may need to re-consider now that lawmakers are suggesting and even urging the President to declare the debt ceiling un-Constitutional. --Unforgettable fan (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Definite Default

Regarding the current quote: According to the US Treasury, "failing to increase the debt limit would... cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history".

This very carefully worded and misleading statement from the partisan President Obama Treasury department implies that the Federal Government would definitely default on its interest payments to service the debt. This is not true - the Federal Government has an income of $200B per month - they can prioritize interest payments to be paid first with this money thus avoiding default. They would also have enough income to pay Social Security benefits, Medicare and military salaries. Of course, the government would have to reduce spending in other areas. This should be moved to a lower section (Nature of Debate) and replaced with more general terms of the implications of not raising the debt ceiling. --Unforgettable fan (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unforgettable fan, please supply inline citation(s) for all the material you added to the lead section. The material you deleted had a reliable reference (The US Treasury, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/news/Pages/debt-limit.aspx) and you should not override it with unsourced materials. Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote from the Treasury Dept was moved down to Background (maybe it should be in Consequences of Not Raising the Debt Ceiling). I edited the lead section to be more concise and higher level so a reader could get a quick understanding of the subject. For instance, the broader statement "implications of not raising the debt ceiling" in the lead section is where the Treasury statement would be detailed information. If you think the lead section should be more detailed and expansive then we can move this back to the lead section along with more explanation of what "defaulting on its legal obligations" means. Thoughts?--Unforgettable fan (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

UF- I think you misunderstood me. I'm not objecting to the content of the new lead but merely to the lack of reliable sources. It is not sufficient that the statements in the lead be correct; they have to be supportable by reliable sources. The first statement in WP:V (one of our three core content policies) states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

According to WP:LEADCITE, you must include inline citations for for every contentious statement in the lead. Because this article concerns a major Congressional debate, every statement can be considered controversial and contentious. This is particulary true for statements in the lead. Many people will only read the lead and nothing else. The original, two-sentence lead provided a reliable source for both sentences. (If the US Treasury isn't reliable, what is?)

I have inserted CN tags on statements that I think require inline citations in the lead section. Please supply them or move your material down to another section like Proposed Resolutions. You can also point out other sources throughout the article that support the current lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hard to find sources with a high-level summary for this current event. Can point to lots of references that would just be snippets of an overview but not tie it altogether. The Lead Section has been changed so much that it is moot (atleast for my content).

BTW, in my research I found that the US Treasury Secretary (appointed by Obama) statement was controversial as Senators (Republicans of course) accused Geithner of basically scare mongering on default. I think additional content would have to be added to Lead to make it neutral.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on Background

The statement "the current budget deficit - created in 2001 as a result of the Bush tax cuts causing a structural budget deficit, and exacerbated by the cyclical budget effects of the Great Recession" is biased and ignores the increased spending over the last decade, especially the significant increases in the last 5 years. This should be removed.

The statement "contrary to the beliefs of some Americans who [interpret] the debt limit as a brake on government spending." is a snipit from an opinion article in the Cook Political Report not even directly related to the topic and is not based in fact. This does not belong in the article.

Need to add more context from the GAO statement to include that the debt ceiling can lead to debate on fiscal policy.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply:

Deficit

No, the statement is not biased. Spending has risen over the last decade - we can modify the statement to include recognition that unpaid for permanent spending made the deficit worse, but I was identifying what CREATED it - which is the tax cuts. Without the tax cuts, their would have been a surplus, until and unless a different policy was changed. But it is entirely relevant to include, in the background, the source of debt: deficit, and therefore where the current one originated (even if unpaid for spending did, I agree, make it worse subsequently), given we had a surplus in 2000.

Only facts are to be in WikiPedia. Please provide substantial evidence from several reliable sources that cannot be substantially refuted that show that the Bush tax cuts 'created' the current deficit in a significant way. Reducing tax rates does not mean reduced tax revenue; tax revenue has increased after tax cuts because it spurs economic growth and increases the tax base. Refer to Laffer.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, yes, since Clinton left office, spending rose, but so did taxes - even without changes policies, this happens naturally due to population growth: more people to collect tax from, more to administer services to. The change in policy that eliminated the surplus left by Clinton was the tax cuts. You are right, however, that increased permanent spending (like the War in Iraq, Medicare Part D, and the Homeland Security Department), made the structural deficit worse, but what initially eliminated it was the tax cuts. If they had not happened, it would have taken something else to eliminate the deficit. It just so happens that they were implemented first.

Clearly the total spending in dollars has increased from 2000 to 2011, but I agree that is not the best measure due to growing population, economy, inflation, etc. To baseline spending, an objective measure is to look at Spending-to-GDP ratio. In FY2000, the ratio was 18%. The ratio increased to 20% from 2003 to 2008. It then incresed to 22% in FY2009 and 28% in FY2010. We don't have the FY2011 ratio yet but I assume it to be about the same as FY2010. Now if you assumed that spending from FY2001 to FY2010 was at 18% of GDP, this would have meant that spending would have been $3.8T lower and thus the national debt would have been $3.8 Trillion lower (this excludes the deficit of FY2011 which likely is $1.3T over 18% spending ratio). To me, this shows that increased spending had a significant impact on the growing debt from 2000 to 2011, and I would argue the largest factor.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, whilst there have been increases in spending in the last 5 years, not all are the same. There are none structural, i.e. cyclical deficit impacts that occur even if no one changed the policy. Cyclical budgets impacts include the Great Recession (where there are less people working, which means less revenue because without income you don't have those taxes, and more spending to support them via unemployment benefits). The stimulus is also cyclical because it is a temporary policy response that, whilst it does increase the short-term deficit, has no long-term i.e. permanent increases in spending.

With regards to what caused the current debt of $14.3T, it does not matter if spending was 'structural' or not. Spending in any form over the last 10 years contributed to the current debt.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the discussion about the Bush Tax Cuts? According to many studies, the Bush Tax Cuts are the largest component explaining the current deficit 173.70.133.205 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to another WikiPedia article that discusses Sources of the Debt. Doesn't make sense to duplicate it.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Perception

It is entirely relavent to explicitly point out what the debt ceiling is, and underscoring that the common understanding, as revealed by polls, is not the correct understanding, so we can emphasis that the common understanding is an erronious perception of the issue. This fact - that the polls show a majority of Americans misunderstand what the debt ceiling is - is thus relevant to include what the misunderstanding is, to explain how it is mistaken, so people shouldn't be able to make the same mistake if they come here trying to understand what the debt ceiling, in fact, is.

And Charlie Cook is a reliable source both for the respect of the CPR, but also his positions at National Journal. Whilst the polls in their raw form are available, it's simply to use that analysis of it since he is a reliable source and the information is relevant. 115.188.221.123 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First, it appears to me that you are trying to give the perception that Americans are dumb and the debt ceiling should just be raised without any discussion. Second, if this is deemed relevant to the article, then quote the raw polls - Cook's opinion article does not refer or imply to any such poll. And yes, if the GAO statement needs to be in this article, the context of the quote needs to be enlarged to include that the debt ceiling can lead to debate on fiscal policy to change the trajectory of the debt.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am most certainly not implying that Americans are dumb. I am, however, recognizing that, according to the polls, a substantial amount of Americans, for what ever reason, have an erroneous understanding of what the debt ceiling is (including, for example, not paying attention because they debate is not important to them atm, and they have lives to lead; or genuine misunderstanding). Whilst I think the d.c. should be eliminatd, I'm not trying to include my PoV in the wiki article. The inclusion of the Cook reference is concerned with what the d.c. is, not with what to do about it; I am trying to explicitly point out the apparently common misunderstanding, which Cook identifies, and point out why it is mistaken, as per the GAO. After all, what the debt ceiling is, in fact, is certainly relevant to the article. Being clear about what it is by differentiating it from the common misunderstanding seems a good way to prevent the spread of, and address the misunderstanding. Cook does refer to polls, but, yes, he doesn't link to them - he refers to them second hand. But since Cook is a reliable source (who is referencing polls that exist - that he has found either via his position at either the CPR or National Journal), I think Cook is sufficient. I might check later for raw polls (which I do remember reading myself somewhere), to add for precaution, but I'll see if I have time, because I don't think it is necessary, as I said, given Cook is a reliable source.

As for adding to the context of the GAO quote to include that the debt ceiling can lead to debate about fiscal policy, I might find such an addition acceptable, depending on what kind of addition you mean exactly. When I reversed your last change, I couldn't work out (and didn't have time to check) if you were sourcing a quote from the GAO (i.e. extending what is currently in the article) or adding it yourself. If it was the former, I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will reconsider its inclusion, but perhaps not in the same paragraph (though probably still in the background section) - i.e. if the GAO said that the d.c. can serve as a means to get people to consider fiscal policy, I'll consider editting the quote in, but at the same time, it'll probably refer to the fact that the debt ceiling has forced a debate of fiscal policy (i.e. intro: the crisis=a debate; the section 'nature of the debate'). But, at least, if you can clarify if it was a quote, then I'll check back later to see what I can do to accomodate this. I hope that'll be agreeable. 115.188.221.123 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that you are pushing a POV that the debt ceiling should be eliminated or ruled unconstitutional. On this particular point, to me this whole Cook paragraph is not of major relevance to the article and probably does not belong. But if it remains, using a single paragraph that is of secondary nature to the main topic from a Cook article is not a proper source. Would you find it acceptable if someone referenced Glenn Beck, who has 20 researchers and which many consider a 'reliable' source, in this article?--Unforgettable fan (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote that I had was from the GAO report.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

'Can lead to debate'

Well, yes, the debt ceiling can lead to debate - it is. That is the clear in the article. Intro: The crisis is a debate. Section: Nature of the debate. It is clearly evident that the debt ceiling can lead to debate - it is doing that. We've made that quite clear. If you want to add more to the GAO's quote, I might agree with you, if it adds something. But I think it has been made quite clear that the debt ceiling and debate on the debt are very much linked in the artile on the crisis.

Proposed Resolutions

Issuing platinum coins & Weight of Moody's credit analyst

I think the last 2 paragraphs probably should not be in the article. First a Constitutional Law professor is suggesting some odd monetary solutions that I don't think have been discussed at all by the players in the debate. Second a Moody's credit analyst is suggesting that Congress should eliminate the debt ceiling so his agency would worry less - again, in my research I have not seen anyone else suggesting this, especially anyone of significance. If this is the threshold to be included in this article, the list will grow very long with some very interesting solutions. Thoughts on eliminating these 2 paragraphs?--Unforgettable fan (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Legislation

I was curious to see how Wikipedia covered the different bills going through Congress. I had to go to the Timeline to find one of them. The others were mentioned in the speeches on Monday night (I'm surprised there wasn't more coverage of those) but nothing really was said about the other bills. Sure, I can go read the newspaper today, I suppose, but when I read an actual newspaper I'm very unlikely to get around to adding a summary of what I read to Wikipedia. If I'm online it's more likely.

I have to say there's a lot of stuff here I hadn't seen yet. Some of it is actually reassuring.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion to include a list of legislation related to this topic.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Constitutionality?

It seems that the section on constitutionality is missing an obvious point: the 14th amendment, if interpreted to prohibit a default on the debt, clearly would merely require the President to service the debt in the event the debt ceiling is not raised. It in no way would authorize the President to increase the debt without congressional approval.

In particular, the argument by Matthew Zeitlin (and others mentioned) is obviously disingenuous at best, and clearly intended to influence only the uninformed. For the Supreme Court to uphold the debt limit would in no way "in effect, be voting for the United States to default". It seems obvious that the Court would uphold the constitutionality of the debt limit and rule that the President is obligated to service the debt if the limit is not raised. There seems no possible reason for the court to rule otherwise, given that the constitution simultaneously requires the debt to be honored, and provides that only congress can authorize more debt, and given that the President will have the means (tax revenues) to service the debt whether the debt limit is raised or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.35.116 (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, the claim by Jack Balkin "Whereas the debt ceiling gives Congress the power for the United States to default on its debts by requiring approval of a higher debt limit" is illogical nonsense. Requiring approval of a higher debt limit in no way causes a debt default.

Shouldn't this Wiki article exclude such inane ramblings by those attempting to fraudulently misrepresent the issue to the ignorant?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.35.116 (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 75.216.35.116 on all of the above and much of this discussion is disingenous.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm short on time at the moment, but I intend to address the 'deficit' and 'constitutionality' concerns in more depth later. For now, I think it is important for me to at least say that 1) claiming that certain debators and their arguments on the topic of the d.c.'s constitutionality are disingenuous is PoV - or, at least, very difficult to prove to be such (if it actually is). I think they're sincere, and also correct. The fair thing to do, then, it seems to me, is not, as you suggest, remove them, but retain them because I absolutely do not think they are misrepresenting the issue; in fact, I believe (and will elaborate) that I think you are misunderstanding a crucial part of their arguments (which may be why you think they are being disingenuous), but as someone who agrees with them, I'm convinced that this not the case. So, please, I think the best approach is not to insultingly accuse people of inanely rambling, or of fraud and disingenuity, but assume good faith and sincerity of disagreement. Whilst I do intend to address your points more specifically, if you are willing to accept my claim in good faith, this alone should mean that no change to the constitutionality sections is warranted nor wise.

2) [Editted post-Goldsmith post] I would be happy to elaborate on the idea that 'we' are claiming that "the Supreme Court could usurp the authority of congress, and effectively authorize debt to be incurred on behalf of the U.S. against the will of congress." No, we're making a point about constitutional authority on all appropriations and the executive's ability to respect said Congressional authority; which, if misunderstood, I think, is the only way for you to reach the opinion you do i.e. that the crisis can simply be resolved, without raising the debt ceiling AND, if necessary, without Congress legislating a new level of appopriations, with the President selectively defaulting. We believe that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because it prevents the executive from respecting Congressional authority, and is therefore unconstitutional; and that selective default is sovereign default, the consequences of which are more severe than you are anticipating. However, like Goldsmith argues, this is not the place to debate that, but if you wish to provide such an avenue, I would be happy to discuss there. Instead I refer you to my first paragraph and to Goldsmith: we, as editors, have done what we ought: provide the views that people have argued of the constitution on the debt ceiling, sourced correctly, in a reasonable format; and that we have done. Whether or not we agree with the views included is entirely PoV and does not give us liscence to edit them out. 115.188.221.123 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I wouldn't minimize the consequences of failure to make any appropriated spending, I only suggested that they belong in the consequences section, not the constitutionality section. As far as "selective default", are you suggesting that appropriation bills, themselves, can be interpreted as an implied authorization to create debt, despite the fact that congress authorizes (and limits) the creation of debt separately?75.246.208.132 (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I should add that a failure of government to spend money is by definition not "sovereign default" unless you're referring to failure to pay back a debt. Most government spending is not for the purpose of paying any legal debt or obligation of the U.S. government. Also, just out of curiosity, if the President were to incur debt on his own to fund spending, who would be expected to buy bonds that are not authorized by congress? What kind of rating would S&P, etc give these "Presidentially authorized" treasury bonds?75.255.78.36 (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To be civil, these are not "inane ramblings" - you have misunderstood the arguments.

It seems you have misunderstood my comments, I'll address your points below.75.216.35.116 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If I read what you said "clearly would merely require the President to service the debt; not authorize him to increase debt" as you interpreting the debt ceiling to mean that the President is required to reduce the deficit (since, if you can't borrow money, you can't run a deficit), by whatever means - raising taxes, cutting spending; because this would not entail borrowing more. Well, the Heritage foundation argued that.

Yes, the debt ceiling is obviously a prohibition of incurring further debt, effectively a prohibition on further deficit spending. But not by "whatever means". Clearly the debt limit is a limit on spending, not an authorization to raise taxes. The President obviously cannot impose taxes without the consent of congress.75.216.35.116 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A few problems problems:

1) For the President to close the deficit as he chooses would taking power away from Congress i.e. Congress has the authority to set spending and taxes. If you are saying that the President must not exceed the debt, and he can do so by balancing the budget through spending cuts and/or taxes raises, you are arguing that the President can take Constitutionally assigned, Congressional powers. I.e. That would be unconstitutional. (See Laurance Tribe).

I have made no such argument. Clearly the President cannot raise taxes, but failure to spend money authorized by congress would not usurp congresses authority, given that the debt limit limiting such spending was imposed by congress. It cannot be logically argued that honoring the debt limit imposed by congress usurps congress' authority.75.216.35.116 (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

2) What does it mean for the President to, whilst not borrowing more money, meet the obligations to the debt? If he has to cut programs, then he will be defaulting on obligations i.e. Congress has appropriated spending to Medicare, and borrowed money from countries that need to be paid back. If the President has to prioritize the debt over Medicare (honour the debt without taking on more debt to fund other obligations), then it is still defaulting on Medicare. Like Geithner argues, if the President can, even selectively, default, it is likely to have bad economic ramification. Not the least of which would be cutting spending in half, nearly overnight.

Sure, I never said otherwise. But a failure to make Medicare payments is not a default on the U.S. debt or a violation of the 14th amendment. Sure it could have bad ramifications, but that has nothing to do with constitutionality, so that should be in the "Consequences of not raising the debt ceiling" section, not the Constitutionality section.75.216.35.116 (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

3) Now, if the President can't take Congress' power to appropriate (set taxes/spending), then he can't obey that the Constitution while obeying the statute (i.e. you can't issue more debt); so the only way to resolve that constitutionally is to rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional, as Garrett Epps argues, or else you have to give the President the powers of Congress. Congress can't set spending to one level, and taxes lower and then require a subsequent vote to honour what it has said it will do i.e. it is said it will pay Medicare/Social Security, and it will pay back what it has borrowed. To require a second vote to meet those obligations you've already agreed to is preventing the Executive from what you've already told it to do, and thus is unconstitutional double counting.

I wasn't referring to Epps' argument being illegitimate. While I disagree with it, it should be included in the article, since it's not "inane ramblings" that misrepresent the issue. But which section of the constitution prohibits such "double counting"? Clearly neither the President nor the Supreme Court can constitutionally incur debt, spend money, or impose taxes without the approval of congress. But congress has the constitutional authority to authorize spending while simultaneously limiting the total debt that may be incurred for that purpose, just as it has done.

Of course this results in giving, IMO, too much discretion to the President to prioritize spending, but that was congress' choice. And that can be easily fixed by congress simply prioritizing spending itself. Either way, there's nothing unconstitutional about it.75.216.35.116 (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

4) And let's say they're wrong; Zeitlen argues that Congress' wouldn't have standing to sue based on PRECEDENT; and if someone could and DID, the argument is that the court would only be left with ruling it unconstitutional or allow 1/2/3 to happen.

This is simply incorrect. The Supreme Court simply cannot effectively authorize the President to incur debt without the approval of congress. And the court cannot raise taxes, or consent to a debt default, since any of the above would clearly violate the constitution. The only option that doesn't clearly violate the constitution would be to simply service the debt without exceeding the debt limit.

Another important point is that the 14th amendment specifically refers to the public debt "authorized by law". The public debt authorized by law is $14.3 trillion. 75.216.35.116 (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, you disagree, fine - I think you're conslusion is logically unsound; but the arguments are there for people to have access to. I may not agree with some, but they're are rightly included. 115.188.221.123 (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a simple disagreement. The idea that the Supreme Court could usurp the authority of congress, and effectively authorize debt to be incurred on behalf of the U.S. against the will of congress is preposterous. Please forgive my bluntness, but it seems necessary to make the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.35.116 (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 75.216.35.116.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources?

Most of the above arguments are interesting but they are not on point. We are editors of an encyclopedia, not constitutional scholars and this talk page is not supposed to be a free ranging discussion of the way we think a subject ought to be treated. As WP:Talk says "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject".

If anyone can come up with a reliable source for any of the above opinions, insert it in the article. If not, what are we doing here? (As near as I can tell, the text in the article itself is properly sourced.)

Now WP:UNDUE says that we should not give undue weight to any particular point of view. It seems to me that someone could argue that we are giving to much emphasis to the whole subject of Constitutionality and the 14th Admendment. You might argue that the whole section on Constitutionality should be trimmed down are moved to a sub-article "Constitutionality of the US debt ceiling" (also referenced by Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution).

But, it also seems to me that that conclusion rests on whether the 14th is ever used in this iteration of the debt ceiling problem. For example, if Congress runs out of time and Obama then raises the debt ceiling on his own, citing the 14th, then it becomes a subject of intense interest to readers of this article. And, since we are not a crystal ball, we ought to err of the inclusive side and preserve this section (with improvements) as is.

"Intense interest" would be putting it mildly, given that the 14th amendment specifically refers to the public debt "authorized by law" which is $14.3 trillion, not a higher amount.75.246.208.132 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This section on Constitionality is at a minimum much too large and it could be argued that it does not belong in this specific article on the 2011 Debt Ceiling Crisis.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this article is time-limited. If we get to Aug 2 without a resolution, this article will effectively end and become a sub-article under the Background section of something like 2011 United States sovereign default. In this case, talk about the constitionality of whatever steps are then taken will be of intense interest to our readers. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign default? I would say if that happens, it would be a sub-article under "Obama Impeachment", since tax revenues are expected to be several times the amount necessary to meet debt obligations. I know this isn't a forum for debate, but who really thinks Obama would even consider defaulting on the debt? Political posturing is one thing, but our President, love him or hate him, is not that insane.75.203.146.169 (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is clear from the Constitution that the president lacks the power to unilaterally raise or eliminate the debt ceiling. And he could and should reserve enough revenue to service the debt without raising the debt ceiling. However, he may have backed himself into a corner by spending down so close to zero that, if the ceiling had not been raised, he could not get enough revenue before a payment was due to make the payment. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline Sources

Would everybody who contributed one or more entries to the Timeline please go back and add at least one reliable inline citation to his or her entry(s)? I'm particularly worried about the date that starts the entry. At a minimum, your source should mention the date of the event. Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added "Citation Needed" templates on all of the unsourced entries in the Timeline and inserted a "Ref Improve" banner at the top of the section. In total, I've tagged 8 out of the 14 entries. Although I'd prefer to let authors source their own material, I will begin looking up references for each entry starting on July 28th. If my citation is not the one referenced originally by the author, this may change the wording or even the intent of the entry. In the worst case, I may have to delete the entry because I can find no reference.

Please, if you contributed to the timeline without citing your source, do it now. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I added references for most of the items. --Unforgettable fan (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would be of more use to the article if this section was integrated into the rest of the article, or, if already in article, omit this section entirely. It looks clunky and doesn't suit the typical Wikipedia article format. WikiHaquinator likes to talk and make boxes! 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gross Wikipedia Sourcing Violation

The majority of assertions made in this article are completely unsourced. It consists of vast swaths of text followed by a "cite" which either doesn't support the claim at all, or perhaps gives partial support to the very last line of the immediately preceding paragraph. In short, it's merely an opinion piece masquerading as scholarship. Article on other political topics which lack an accurate cite every sentence or two generally get the speedy deletion treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree but this is a new article. It was started less than two weeks ago. Remember, its primary purpose is to provide historical context as befits an encyclopedia article for readers a year or a decade from now. It is not a string of news stories.

(By the way, I disagree that this article deserves any kind of deletion. See WP:DEL.)

Many people will post statements without inline citations. These essentially break down into statements that have a source but the author didn't include it and statements that have no source and, even if factually true, were made up out of whole cloth. These will eventually be tagged with Citation Needed and then either the source will be found (see Unforgettable Fan's great work just above on the Timeline) or the statement will be eliminated.

You can help by inserting {{CN}} or {{Failed verification}} tags on all statements that you think require better sources. If you want, you can list the most egregious statements here. Better yet, find sources yourself and, if necessary, rephrase the paragraph. Remember that a statement marked CN or FV will generally have a month or two minimum before being deleted. We take the long view. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Clarification on Early Votes

In the section "Proposed resolutions", there is a sentence which says "Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, have refused to raise the debt ceiling without deficit reduction, voting down a 'clean' raise in the House, with many Democrats in the House voting in protest against what they called a 'political stunt' given that Republicans had the votes to ensure a clean raise would not pass.". I find this to be quite confusing, and I would appreciate clarification. The 'clean' raise that was voted down in the House -- was that a bill passed to the House by the Senate, or was it something that made it out of a House committee? Was it really a straight party vote as the sentence implies? And what, exactly, did many Democrats in the House vote in protest against? That same bill? In what way, then, was their vote a protest? And when did all this happen? I tried following the citation for more information, but it took me to a pay-for-use news site, so I couldn't get the details there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.137.9 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is very confusing. This is the same event as described in the Timeline on May 31, 2011. Is that any better?--Unforgettable fan (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The timeline has a link to a MarketWatch article (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/congress-plans-symbolic-vote-on-us-debt-ceiling-2011-05-31?link=MW_latest_news) which suggests that the events were not as described on the Wikipedia page. First of all, many Democrats (82 of them) voted against the 'clean' bill, suggesting that it is not just Republicans who have demonstrated refusal to raise the debt ceiling without deficit reduction. I have changed the passage accordingly. Also, the Democrats did not vote in protest; they voted in earnest and protested in the public forum. I suggest that part of the passage be changed to something like "Democrats have criticized this vote as an insincere attempt to resolve the crisis, since the Republican leaders who called the vote knew it would fail." However, I can't find a good citation to support that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.137.9 (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-colons for complex series -- a standby of techical writing

I'm using semicolons for complicated in-line lists; they can get pretty tangled otherwise. (I couldn't find a WP policy on this.) -- Jo3sampl (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just not sure . . .

Under 'Background'/Envisaged consequences, we have "Nevertheless, many analysts and politicians predict that a deal will be reached before the August 2 deadline." I don't see why "Nevertheless" is there, and I'm not sure this sentence is in the right place. And I'm tempted to add "No deal has been reached as of July 28", but I'm not sure if there's WP policy about that. Suggestions? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Teller See Also

Just read about See Also for another article. If Teller's connection to the article is not clear, editors should add a brief explanation, probably just a phrase, to explain why the See Also is there. In the Teller article we see:

Paul Teller is the Executive Director of the United States House of Representatives Republican Study Committee. Teller was described in a Washington Post profile as “one of the most influential conservative aides in Congress.”[1] As a result of actions he took during the 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis, Republican members of the House of Representatives chanted "fire him, fire him" during a caucus meeting the morning of July 27, 2011.[2]

and

Teller played a controversial role 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis when, in July 2011, he and his subordinates reportedly emailed several conservative groups to urge the groups to lobby against a plan put forward by Speaker of the House John Boehner.[2][6] After Teller's actions were made public and discussed at a Republican caucus meeting on July 27, 2011, which Teller attended, members of the caucus chanted "fire him, fire him".

I'm not seeing a strong enough connection, and definitely not one that can be reduced to a phrase; I propose removal of the See Also. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Paul Teller should not be a See Also. If what he did is important enough to be included in the article then he should be incorporated and his source(s) cited in the text. I am removing the See Also. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Conventions for this article (reviewed 8/23/11)

Outside of direct quotes --

• Use US, rather than U.S.
• Use United States at the first occurrence in a section, and US after that FOR ADJECTIVAL USES -- write out if used as a noun.
• Use US Treasury at the first occurrence in a section, and Treasury after that.
• Use past tense throughout the article.

Discussion prior to 8/23:
Tried, but apparently some bot doesn't like the "US/U.S." edit. I'll try again later.

---

Sanogo700 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm . . . from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mos#Abbreviations:

US and U.S.

In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States, although The Chicago Manual of Style now deprecates the use of the periods (16th ed.); US (without periods) is generally accepted in most other national forms of English. In longer abbreviations incorporating the country's initials (USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK, and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K., and the P.R.C.). Do not use the spaced U. S., nor the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA).

I'll give it a try. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Timeline section done. This might not be practical -- I still think it's the right thing to do, but I lost all my edits on the Timeline section due to an edit conflict and had to redo them. We'll see . . . Jo3sampl (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Constitutionality of the debt ceiling section done. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your second point. What's the basis for that? Even after the first occurrence, I would use "United States" as a noun, not "U.S." (and certainly not "US"). The abbreviation is acceptable when it's an adjective -- "U.S. currency" or the like. All these usage points are subject to the overriding rule that verbatim quotations are to be reproduced verbatim. JamesMLane t c 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that direct quotes are not to be altered. For the rest of the text, the tendency is for the editor to spell everything out in the current changes, since it's that editor's first use; I think the back-and-forth is distracting. As for the periods, I'd rather make the shortening consistent; I think "US" is easier, less error-prone, less likely to have a space stuck into it, and unambiguous here. I'm kind of regretting trying for it, though, so -- argue away. You've already convinced me on the noun use. Pickier than -- um-- I! Love it. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC) (P.S.: I don't get the objection to US vs. U.S. You read MoS excerpt above, right?)

The excerpt I read stated in pertinent part, "In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States...." Wikipedia policy is that articles relating primarily to the United States should follow standard American English usage. Thus, in the bio of someone who organizes workers, they join a labor union if the bio subject is American but they join a labour union if the bio subject is British. The Chicago Manual of Style doesn't like the most common AE usage? Fine, but it's still the most common AE usage.

There's really no logical basis for insisting on one over the other on their merits. I prefer the periods because it's what I'm used to. What there is a logical basis for is to avoid arguing this issue over and over again, article by article. The way we avoid that is to follow the MoS. If you think "US" should be made universal, because it's less error-prone and so forth, then you should make that argument on the MoS talk page, not here. JamesMLane t c 19:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read the MoS excerpt as calling for periods, why does it bother to mention the Chicago Manual? I read that to indicate optionality. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Executive order

I heard on the radio this morning, either the five-minute Doug Limerick newscast at 10 A.M. EDT or Mike Huckabee's five-minute commentary aired an hour and a half earlier, that Obama could raise the debt limit by executive order. I haven't researched this and while at home I limit the sites I go to.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is most likely declaring the debt limit unconstitutional. There is a whole section on that.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The debt limit is a condition of the debt authorized by congress (law authorizing treasury to sell (issue) bonds). The debt limit logically can't be constitutionally severed from the debt authority (absent a law by congress), leaving the debt authority itself intact absent the condition (debt limit) the law contains.

Is the purpose of Wikipedia to inform the reader, or to help perpetuate political fraud and misinformation?75.201.240.127 (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is a very difficult argument to declare the debt limit unconstitutional since the Constitution contains clear language that Congress has the power of the purse and to issue debt. But relevant Democratic lawmakers and even the Treasury Secretary at one point argued this and it has been getting increasing coverage by media (which some say perpetuate misinformation). Right now I think it it is fair to lay out the arguments and let the reader make the decision which is better than letting the media make it for them. Also see the discussion above.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be the Fourteenth Amendment that was being referred to.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should report all significant opinions, even those that constitute "political fraud and misinformation". The issue of constitutionality, however, is far from fraudulent.

• Obama wanted the "temporary" tax cuts for the wealthy not extended, but the Republicans wouldn't go along. Obama can't unilaterally increase revenue -- that would be unconstitutional.
• If the debt ceiling is not raised or eliminated, then Obama will have, in effect, a Congressional directive to raise $60, a Congressional directive to spend $100, and a Congressional directive to do so without borrowing money. That's a mathematical impossibility.

Yes, if the debt limit is not raised, the President will fail to meet a "Congressional directive" regardless of his action. But while unilaterally imposing taxes or incurring debt via selling bonds are serious constitutional violations, and the resulting "Presidentially authorized" bonds would not be authorized by law and therefore would not be guaranteed by the 14th amendment, a failure to spend money due to a lack of available funds hardly qualifies as a criminal act. The legal obligation to spend is conditional upon available funds, which is obvious from the fact that congress authorizes the raising of funds (via taxation or selling bonds) separately from authorizing the spending of those funds.75.250.64.228 (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Obama could avoid the impossibility through the Impoundment of appropriated funds, i.e., choosing which programs to fund and refusing to spend the money appropriated for others. That would also be unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court decision in Train v. City of New York.

This situation is not equivalent to Train v. City of New York, since in this situation, the funds in question have not been made available to the President to spend or impound. No one is suggesting that the President impound any funds made available to him by congress. Failure to spend funds that congress didn't make available to him wouldn't constitute impoundment, by any stretch of the imagination.

It's a valid point that the law requires the President to spend money appropriated by congress, but that can't logically be extended to require the President to spend funds that congress hasn't made available to him via taxation or authorizing debt bonds, etc. And it certainly can't be construed to permit the President to raise funds, via taxation or selling bonds, not authorized by law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.170.199 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article reports that Republican leaders have called on Obama to prioritize payments. That seems to amount to a call for impoundment. I don't know whether the Republicans have addressed the constitutional issue arising from their recommendation. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point on impoundment - Congress should be telling the Treasury the priorities, not the Treasury deciding. There is some legislation from Senators to indicate what the Treasury should prioritize first, but it did not cover everything and will probably never become official (what would be the process for this? Law, resolution?). If this point is being made by any of the major players, it could justify a paragraph. --Unforgettable fan (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Asserting an opinion as fact

The introductory section contains this passage: "The solution to the crisis involves either an increase in revenue (taxes), a decrease in expenses (spending) or a combination of the two[citation needed]."

An alternative POV is that this "crisis" is completely manufactured by right-wing Republicans who, in Cantor's phrase, hope for "leverage" to advance their political objectives. On this view, the solution to the situation is the same one that was adopted several times when Bush was President and the Republicans were in the majority in the House and in the Senate, as well as having been adopted routinely under several previous Presidents: a clean bill that raises the debt ceiling, nothing more.

The first paragraph of the introductory section alludes to the issues of what other changes should be made, thus downplaying the logically prior issue of whether the increase in the debt ceiling should be contingent on other changes. The second paragraph goes even further, implicitly assuming the inevitability of a linkage that is not at all inevitable, is ahistorical, and is purely the result of political maneuvering by the Republicans.

Wikipedia should certainly report the right-wing view. We should not, however, adopt it as fact, and we should also report the opposing points of view -- including the view of most economists, that all the debt-reduction provisions being discussed would have contractionary effects at a time when unemployment is already far too high. JamesMLane t c 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph appropriately frames the topic, but I agree that the second paragraph does make some assumptions and doesn't capture the topic in its entirety. I could see it completely deleted and let the rest of the article speak to it.

I argue that this debt ceiling increase is unlike previous ones. The size of the increase being insisted by Obama is unprecedented: ~$2.4T. The last increase was $1.9T in 2010 which was the largest up to that point. Also, the recent deficits are unprecedented and the projected deficits and total debt are daunting. As recently as July 29, Credit rating agencies (who want to see $4T deficit reduction) are saying that US debt will be downgraded on the current trajectory which could increase interest rates and really throw a wrench in the budget and the economy. The CBO says the current projections of the debt will reduce the GNP 2%-6% by 2025. Some argue that deficit reduction should happen separately from raising the debt ceiling, but I think most people would say that it would be very unlikely that any serious deficit reduction would happen separately. This is more than Republicans 'manufacturing' an imaginary crisis, though previous Republicans in 2000's helped set up the structure for these deficits and debt.--Unforgettable fan (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Final paragraph of lead -- Please comment

Does anybody else see any problems with this paragraph? The tone seems more like that of an op-ed the an encyclopedia. Specifically:

Since Congress has authorized the spending that requires the debt increase, it is ironic that it now refuses to allow the borrowing to fund its own spending authorizations.

and

This crisis has also indicated that a party in control of only one chamber of Congress (in this case, Republicans in control of the House of Representatives but not the Senate or the Presidency) can have significant influence if it chooses to block the routine raising of the debt limit.

This needs some citations. What makes it ironic? Who says they refuse to allow borrowing? It's an argument of how much, not whether or not. As for the second part, since when is one chamber of Congress blocking legislation something that's never been indicated before? It happens a lot when there is a split government.

--Ted87 (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think the paragraph should be removed, maybe moving the footnoted sentence to another section in the article. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Some of these arguments are used in Constitutionality section. --Unforgettable fan (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph: "December 16, 2009 under President Obama's term marks the only time...". Not the only time. Rehash of Debt issuance suspension period. Removed paragraph.

Second 'graph: "President Obama's 2012 budget proposal estimates that the...". Rehash of the first paragraph under section Debt issuance suspension period. Removed paragraph.

Third 'graph: "Critics have argued..." Moved graph down to bullet item under Recent concern sub-section. Not sure it belong in article.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate use of links

How did a link to the wiki article for Microsoft PowerPoint get into this article (in the section "tentative agreement"), and how is mention of powerpoint at all relevent in this article? The source may be a powerpoint presentation, but the offending sentence could also read "The same day, Speaker Boehner's office released an outline of the agreement for House Republicans". A large number of the words used in this article could have related wikipedia articles from which could be linked, but it would of course lead to link soup. I was surprised to see out of all the words in the first paragraph under "tentative agreement" the only link was to the wiki page on microsoft powerpoint. I'm not fussed either way as I'm more a passer by to this article, but in the interest of making a worthwhile reference I would urge editors that links be related to the topic of the article. There doesn't seem to be violation of WP:LINK such as under/overlinking specifically as far as I can tell; my concern is more about maintaining the usefulness of the links to the topic the reader is researching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I edited that particular sentence to remove the unnecessary mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Citation

It seems to me that somewhere in this article, there should be a Thomas bill link and bull number. Rather than quoting news and opinion pieces, the actual roll call should be referenced. Here is some citations that can be used:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.365:
S.365 - Budget Control Act of 2011
That seems to be the one that was signed into law.Karplusan (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources aren't usually used as sources in Wikipedia because you need a secondary source to interpret it.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We often link to THOMAS to give the reader easy access to the exact text of the bill and/or the roll call vote on it. What would be unacceptable would be to say something like "The bill significantly reduced the procedural protections afforded to defendants." There could well be a provision having that effect, but a mere citation to the provision wouldn't establish the point as a fact for the general reader. JamesMLane t c 21:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are of great importance; Wikipedia guidelines just prohibit personal interpretations. The link for some reason now is at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.365: . Wnt (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Solowing106's opinion

Oh my holy mother of cheezits, what's wrong w/ Obama? Man, it's $14,400,000,000,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solowing106 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We do have titles with years in them

Look at 2011 Libyan Civil War. We named it that because it occurs in this year and it is not the only war that potentially could occur in that region, and it makes it completely clear what we're referring to.

It doesn't take a 'crystal ball' to realize that the present debt ceiling crisis is not the last crisis, since the bill passed by Congress merely delays dealing with the issue. The debt is not going to be reduced, only its potential growth, and the same circumstances will exist over the next decade. It is better to have a title that clearly reflects the current crisis, unless this is re-written as an article on the issue of the US Debt in general, and it presently is not. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 Libyan civil war article is incorrectly titled too, given the lack of a previous Libyan civil war. (The "2011" portion appears to be a vestige of the article's original title, 2011 Libyan protests.) Please see List of civil wars and observe that most of the articles' titles lack years (despite the fact that each "is not the only war that potentially could occur in that region"). We don't assume that another civil war eventually will occur in each of those countries and preemptively disambiguate their titles. If and when such disambiguation is needed, we add it then. Until such time, we're only as precise as necessary (per WP:PRECISION).

Reliable sources corroborate that the potential exists for a future debt ceiling crisis to arise (similar to the potential for another civil war to be fought in a particular country), but we have no means of knowing whether one actually will occur. If and when one does, that's when we should add disambiguation to the title. Until such time, we're only as precise as necessary (per WP:PRECISION). —David Levy 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, what you describe could be considered a continuation of the same crisis, so there might not even be a need for a separate article. It's impossible to predict at this juncture, which is why we don't try. —David Levy 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A continuation of this same crisis would really be just a generalized US debt issue, and not something that needs a content fork. -- Avanu (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. So in such a case, we might simply expand this article instead of forking out another one. —David Levy 02:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the current second paragraph of our article, it seems there was a debt ceiling crisis in 2009. Thus the recently postponed debt ceiling crisis is not the only such crisis. This seems to me to argue in favor of a title that identifies this particular one. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The situation described in the second paragraph isn't widely regarded as a "crisis," as explained in the third paragraph. —David Levy 03:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please stop moving the title around. There is no need to give the year, as this is the one and only time the debt ceiling has generated a crisis. Speciate (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. I have no intention of changing the title, just of exploring the situation and perhaps improving the article. The first sentence of paragraph 3 seems odd to me. I'll think about it some more.

Going back to paragraph 2, "the amount owed by the US government numerically exceeded the statutory limit." In what other way than "numerically" could the amount owed exceed the limit? "Numerically" is unnecessary IMO. But maybe I'm missing something. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I put 2011 in the title was that this is the second time we've had a debt ceiling crisis. In 1953, the Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling. The Eisenhower administration increased the gold deposits at the Federal Reserve, in effect monetizing a small bit of the 8000 tons of gold in Fort Knox. Congress eventually gave in and increased the debt ceiling in 1954. See Monetizing gold in the article. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Agreement and result" should be its own section

And not a subsection of "Proposed resolutions".Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, it may be better if it would be simply called "aftermath". --93.139.172.235 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, yesterday's events are the agreement. Maybe a new section called "Aftermath" should follow a newly titled "Agreement".Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --93.139.172.235 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many tenses

The section "Proposed resolutions" jumps between present and past tense, in some cases from one sentence to the next. (I realize this is an issue in current affairs articles.) Wanderer57 (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat improved -- Jo3sampl (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I worked on it and thought I fixed everything.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Graph

The graph depicting the federal debt ceiling is color coded to show Congressional control. Wasn't 2010 (and 2011) split Congress, and not Democrat controlled? Rhobeca (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The 111th United States Congress was elected in 2008 and served during 2009 and 2010. Both of its houses were controlled by the Democrats. The 112th United States Congress was elected in 2010 and will serve during 2011 and 2012. Its Senate is controlled by the Democrats; but its House of Representatives is controlled by the Republicans. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that another graph, the graph currently in the infobox, demonstrates USD inflation better than it does anything else. It may as well be labeled similarly to this graph. – RVJ (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference

I added information about the parties in the Senate that voted for and against the final bill to the Timeline section, with a reference (the roll call page on the Senate's website - the same source that is used on the Wikipedia article for the bill). However, the reference I used is numbered 143 in the article and 141 in the references list - they don't match up correctly. The reference that is number 143 in the list is not the reference I used to get the information. I'm not sure how to correct this problem, but I hope someone else can. Basically, if anyone knows how to fix it, the references currently numbered 143 in the article and 141 in the reference list should be pointing to the same source. Alphius 00:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Numeric footnotes change as other citation are added above them. Please state the exact words in the article, indicating the refererence you say is wrong. Like this:

THIS IN ONLY AN EXAMPLE

• July 31, 2011. President Barack Obama announces that leaders of both parties have reached an agreement to lift the debt ceiling and reduce the federal deficit, and separately, House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans that they have reached the framework for an agreement.[143]This is wrong Boehner reveals details of the agreement in a presentation to the House Republicans.[144]
• August 1, 2011. The House passes a bipartisan bill by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted 'yes'; 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted 'no'.[145]

[143] points to here:

142. ^ http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/3-7-31-11-Debt-Framework-Boehner.pdf

It should point to here:

144. ^ "U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote". http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00123

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. The reference that was incorrect was here:

• August 2, 2011. The Senate passes the bill by a vote of 74-26. 28 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 1 independent voted 'yes'; 19 Republicans, 6 Democrats, and 1 independent voted 'no'.[143 (WRONG)] President Obama signed the debt ceiling bill the same day, thus ending fears of a default. Obama also declared that the bill is an "important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our means."[144]

[143] pointed to here:

143. ^ "Fitch May Cut US Top Rating to 'Restricted Default'". Moneynews.com. 2011-06-08. Retrieved 2011-08-03.

It should have pointed to here:

141. ^ "U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote".

The reference numbers still don't match up now either. The new setup is like this:

• August 2, 2011. The Senate passes the bill by a vote of 74-26. 28 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 1 independent voted 'yes'; 19 Republicans, 6 Democrats, and 1 independent voted 'no'.[155] President Obama signed the debt ceiling bill the same day, thus ending fears of a default. Obama also declared that the bill is an "important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our means."[156]

The number [155] is wrong. In the reference list, [155] points to:

155: ^ "Fitch May Cut US Top Rating to 'Restricted Default'". Moneynews.com. 2011-06-08. Retrieved 2011-08-03.

It should point to [153], which is:

^ "U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote". Retrieved August 5, 2011.

However, if you click on the number [155], it still goes to number [153] on the reference list. The numbers are wrong, but the actual link is correct.

I don't understand why this is, or know how to fix it. Hopefully someone knows how to fix this, so that the numbers will match up the way they should. Alphius 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It happened again! Every reference I add points to the right thing if you click it, but is numbered incorrectly!

The page looked like this at the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_debt_ceiling_crisis&diff=443422970&oldid=443422864

In this version of the page, link number 157 in the article points to link number 155 in the references. If you click on the link in the article, it goes to the correct reference, but the numbers are still wrong. Why is this happening? Alphius 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to begin at [146] and [147], the last two references for July 25, 2011. When clicking on them, you go nowhere. After that the numbers are off by two. So I presume that there is some problem with the formatting of these two references. However, I do not understand the format well enough to see what it is. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The URLs are a bit funky. That can cause problems sometimes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The references seem to be working correctly now. Alphius (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

Since the 2011 date has been removed from the title of this article, and since this is not the first debt ceiling crisis, should we include the 1995 crisis information? And then have a comparison? Also, how about adding a section on "Consequences" like today's stock market drop? USchick (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The 1995 shutdown was not a debate over raising the debt ceiling (although Newt Gingrich threatened it). Instead, it was a disagreement over the Budget. When the continuing resolution expired on Nov 14, Clinton vetoed the extension. We have included reference to the United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996 in the See Also section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review the intro copy and see if it's accurate. I tried to simplify. USchick (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline is excessively long. I suggest we cut it down to the most important dates. Date the limit was reached, date the bill was signed, and so forth. The date that S&P announced that they might downgrade the economy (twice) seems like overkill as do some of the others. Arzel (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The extended timeline could be the most valuable piece of information for the researcher studying the debt crisis 5 years from now. We are not a new service. Rather than eliminating most of the timeline entries, they should be expanded in the rest of the article as we try to achieve B- or A- class status.

However, I have no objection to making the bulk of the entries a separate sub-article named something like "Timeline of the debt ceiling crisis", with a "Main article" note (like in the Agreement section) in our article. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead too long

Moving old lead text here so it can be pared down, way too much non-encyclopedic editorial commentary in this version.

old lead

The United States debt ceiling crisis was a financial crisis that threatened a US government default and started a sell off in every major stock market index around the world, threatening an international markets meltdown. The debate started in the United States Congress about the debt ceiling of the United States government that led to economic consequences felt around the world. The international community characterized the political bickering in Washington as playing a game of chicken and criticized the US government for acting "dangerously irresponsible." The debate was about increasing the upper limit of the debt ceiling, whether or not it should be increased, and by what amount. It revolved around how to structure spending and taxation to fund the United States public debt. The debate proposed structural changes to the budgeting process such as spending caps and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Department of the Treasury has no authority to issue or incur debt beyond the debt ceiling. However, on December 16, 2009, the amount owed by the US government surpassed the statutory limit, and the debt ceiling was exceeded. To avoid default, the Treasury Department used "extraordinary accounting tools" to create an additional $150 billion available to meet the necessary federal obligations. The total national debt of $14.4 trillion exceeded the $14.3 trillion previously determined ceiling in July 2011. In contrast to 2009, the situation in 2011, had the potential to become a crisis and to disrupt financial markets, if the government failed to meet its financial obligations. The concern extended beyond the US to countries that held or invested in the United States dollar. Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's placed US debt rating under "negative credit review" during the crisis, which signaled an increasing risk of a downgrade to the US excellent credit rating. Following the debt ceiling crisis, Standard & Poor's downgraded the credit rating of the United States from AAA to AA+ with a negative outlook. The debate was contentious, with nearly all Republican legislators opposing any increase in taxes and the large majority of Democratic legislators viewing tax increases as necessary along with spending cuts. Supporters of the Tea Party movement pushed Republicans to reject any agreement that failed to incorporate large and immediate spending cuts or a completed balanced-budget constitutional amendment. The immediate crisis of 2011, ended when a complex deal imposing limits on both debt and government spending was reached on July 31. After the legislation was passed by both the House and Senate, President Barack Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law on August 2, the day of the deadline.

Avanu (talk), please sign your talk page entries:) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the reduction of the lead hasn't gone far enough. The four paragraphs ("The United States Department of the Treasury has no authority...", "Since debt obligations tend...", "A failure to raise the debt ceiling..." and "If the debt ceiling were not raised...") reiterate the material in the Background section "What is the debt ceiling?". Could they be reduced to one paragraph, with additional material which is now in the lead added to the Background, if necessary? If we do it right then both the readers who've never heard of a debt ceiling before and the readers that have and don't want a rehash will be satisfied. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, complicated matters require long explanations. It's very helpful to get a complete overview in the lead without having to read the entire article, especially when it's this long. I think Avanu did a great job of rewriting the lead, (even though it's not the way I would have done it). The sections about the treasury dept having no authority and similar statements add a lot to the overall understanding IMHO. USchick (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment there. Just curious how we might differ in our approach. I agree that it is probably still too long, but I was mostly trying to remove some of the political fluff that seemed to have crept into the lead. (and yes, I shall always say LEAD not lede - I just don't like it, and Wikipedia is the only place I've prominently seen that spelling) -- Avanu (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There's not a simple way for me to answer this question without going into a long philosophical discussion, but I'll try. I understand this article is limited to what the editors want to focus on, and that's part of the problem. The focus is on irrelevant things like he said-she said-finger pointing in Congress, instead of the actual crisis and its world-wide implications. In some way, this article represents the US view of an isolated incident and does not reflect the world-view of how this is an ongoing situation that started years ago and will affect the future of the entire world's economy. There's plenty of evidence for this in the media when they say that the long term effects of the downgrade will not be felt or known until many years into the future, but just like we didn't want to think about it in the past, we definitely don't want to think about the future! To see how this attitude plays out in real life, see the discussion below about Brinkmanship. USchick (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the lead "should be no more than four paragraphs". Right now, we have seven. If you take 4-paragraph limit as a given, my suggestion is to combine the 4 paragraphs that pertain to background into one paragraph. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. USchick (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious: US reaction, "without the corresponding sale..."

The first sentence in the "US reaction" subsection contains the phrase "without the corresponding sale or issuance of Treasury bonds". This seemed strange to me because how can the national debt be raised without issuing additional Treasury securities?

That phrase's reference is to the "Daily Treasury Statement" by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on August 2, 2011- https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=11080200.pdf I found it dubious because the reference is for Aug 2nd and the article is talking about raising the debt ceiling on Aug 3rd. Of course, on Aug 2nd the Treasury could not issue any further debt because the new law had not been signed until late afternoon.

For August 3rd, again there was no new debt. For Aug 4th (https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=11080400.pdf), they do list over $77 billion dollars issued in marketable bills (in Table III-A). It is possible that either (a) the Treasury reports on transactions a day late in its Daily Treasury Statement or (b, more likely) that Geithner required an extra day to set up the auction. Would someone with more expertise than I have in governmental accounting please take look into this and decide whether of not the phrase up above should be removed? Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I took this to refer to the unwinding of the extraordinary measures which Geithner used. See his letter to Congress. I think that the extraordinary measures amount to pretending that certain money that the US has lent to itself (e.g. on behalf of employees' retirement funds) do not count against the debt ceiling. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah-hah. "...the Treasury Department figures, which are released on the next business day." So says the Washington Times [here]. I'm removing the "without the corresponding sale or issuance of Treasury bonds" as a simple mistake (using Aug 2 Statement rather than Aug 4) and substituting the Aug 4 Treasury Statement reference. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please submit an explanation of political brinkmanship as it relates to the S&P downgrade of USA's credit-worthiness

I was searching Wikipedia for an explanation of "political Brinkmanship" as it related to the debt ceiling issue as quoted in the S&P downgrade. Is there anyone out there who is qualified to write such a thread? 75.61.67.112 (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Cid Young - Moss Beach, CA

"Brinkmanship" is a more formal word for the game of chicken. You go to the brink (edge) of mutual destruction before one of the two opponents gives in to the other because he is more afraid (or less insane) than the other. Also see the bargaining problem.

In this case, defaulting on US Treasury securities was considered to be mutual destruction because of the disastrous effect expected to befall the US economy and the rise in interest rates which the treasury would have to pay.

In the short-term, this mutual destruction from hitting the debt ceiling is an artificially constructed threat (i.e. mutual suicide) since it results from a law forbidding the issuance of debt beyond a certain amount without providing for any mechanism to alleviate the consequent inability to make required payments of the principal and interest of US Treasury securities (debt service). Republican senator Pat Toomey proposed a bill, the "Full Faith and Credit Act" (see this statement including the text of the bill) which would have prevented default after USG's debt hit the debt ceiling by requiring the secretary of the treasury to give priority to making payments on the debt by delaying the fulfillment of other obligations as necessary. The Democrats refused to consider the bill because they did not want to defuse the threat; they wanted to scare the Republicans into backing down from their opposition to increased spending or force them to agree to raise taxes.

In the long-term, the threat is real because if the Congress does not stop its wild spending spree, then eventually it will be impossible to borrow enough money (from tapped out investors) to prevent default. This is why the Republicans are trying to stop this madness now rather than wait for that catastrophe. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The highly partisan nature of the above is a huge deviation and distraction from its alleged purpose of explaining the term "brinkmanship". Wanderer57 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet, that's exactly what happened. While we think it's "too partisan," the rest of the world is watching in disbelief, because the implications for the rest of the world are enormous. USchick (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

insider trading

Should the SEC investigation into insider trading be on the timeline? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-sec-sp-idUSTRE77B0KW20110812 4.249.63.79 (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like another attempt by the Obama administration to 'kill the messenger' — intimidate those who say things which disagree with the rosy scenario that Obama is solving all our problems. Starting a criminal investigation against a political opponent with no evidence of criminality to justify such an investigation.

As such it is worthy of being covered by Wikipedia, but this is not the appropriate article for covering it in my opinion since it does not directly relate to the debt-ceiling crisis. Perhaps the new article United States federal government credit-rating downgrade, 2011 would be a more appropriate place for it. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving the August 15 timeline entry

I want to argue here for the movement of the Aug 15 entry that talks about what would have happened to debt interest if the crisis was not resolved. I removed this on Aug 8 but it was put back on Aug 9 by JRSpriggs.

• First, this entry is purely speculative, since the debt crisis was resolved.
• Unlike the Aug 2 deadline, the only sources I can find are not the Treasury dept or some other federal agency but the smallest of the Big Three (credit rating agencies) and one of the 20 primary dealers.
• Most (90+%?) of the news concentrated on one date: Aug 2nd. Aug 4th was the big Social Security payment and got more play in the news than Aug 15th.
• Geithner never said how they would prioritize payments. If the Treasury decided to prioritize debt interest first (as almost all analysts thought that they would) then the Aug 15 deadline would go away.
• If the Treasury had announced that they would prioritize interest payments first then I intended to replace this Aug 15 entry with what would've happened, according to the Treasury.
• I believe that the Aug 15th entry would be better be served by moving it to a paragraph in the "Implications of not raising the debt ceiling" section.

For all of these reasons, I want to move and rephrase the Aug 15th entry. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some media had lists of US obligations falling due in August which might not have been fulfilled on time, if the debt-ceiling had not been raised by August 2. A new section on all of them (including the one on August 15) would probably be a good idea. If that is done, then the entry on this time-line would be unnecessary as it would be transferred to that other list. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

"The immediate crisis ended on July 31, 2011"

I don't agree with this. Though the Obama and Boehner announced an agreement was reached on this date, there was no certainty that the agreement was going to pass the House (and the Senate to a lesser degree). Either this statement should be removed and stick to the fact that it was signed into law on Aug 2, or the date in this sentence should be changed to Aug 2. Unforgettable fan (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC) -- Done. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't we need something near the top that says "The resolution of the July-August crisis guarantees that the topic will be revisited by Congress in late 2011." -- or something like that? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the Congressional Committee on Deficit Reduction supposed to report that this will raise its head again. -Unforgettable fan (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"political brinkmanship" and "credit downgrade"

This information is already in the section "Reaction". I don't think this belongs in a paragraph whose intent is to be focused on the resolution. Unforgettable fan (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- Jo3sampl (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted this redundant information. -Unforgettable fan (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Own Section?

If the second pargraph is deleted, does this first paragraph deserve its own section? Or should it be a second paragraph in the Lead Section? Or Deleted because there is already a section "Agreement" down below which is essentially the resolution? Unforgettable fan (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It was in the lead and someone moved it. USchick (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved most of the section to the lead section - the rest was redundant information in later section. Eliminated Resolution secdtion. -Unforgettable fan (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Update on S. 163

In "Implications of not raising the debt ceiling", we have "On January 25, 2011, Senator Toomey introduced The Full Faith And Credit Act bill [S.163[48]] that would require the Treasury to prioritize payments to service the national debt over other obligations.[49]". What happened to that bill? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-163 shows

Status: This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by the Senate as a whole. Explanation: Although it has been placed on a calendar of business, the order in which legislation is considered and voted on is determined by the majority party leadership. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Mar 3, 2011 6:15AM]

I'll plan to update the article. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Done -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Debt ceiling precedent

There's a trend in reporting recent events to suggest it's a new chaos. We had a default crises in 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1993, and 1996 in which either Democrats or Republicans held up a debt ceiling vote and threatened default over issues relating to spending, taxes, entitlements and budget controls. The first Bush was forced off his "no new taxes" pledge by the Democrats' refusal to raise the debt ceiling in 1990. Social security benefit calculations were temporarily changed as a short-term delay as Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling in the mid 90s. In fact 2011 was one of the less contentious times in the history of debt ceiling fights as they were able to agree to a long-term extension by the deadline and didn't require a series of short-term deadline extensions. The key difference between 2011 and then may have been only the high debt level, not the routine politics of it all.

Sources: Date line of debt ceiling extensions: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist07z3.xls 1996 letter from the GAO reviewing past close calls on default: http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf1/156088.pdf Centrist think tank detailing past debt ceiling fights: http://crfb.org/document/understanding-debt-limit Referencing the contentious 1979 debt ceiling fight: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-27/business/ct-biz-0727-phil-20110727_1_debt-ceiling-debt-ceiling-talks-debt-limit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.65.16 (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good information. There are several statements about raising the debt ceiling in the past, most implying that the debt ceiling is routinely raised without debate and this debate was unique:

"Sometimes the increase was treated as routine, other times it was used to score political points for the minority party by criticizing the out-of-control spending of the majority.[citation needed]"

"If raising the limit ceases to be routine, this may create uncertainty for global markets each time a debt ceiling increase is debated.[18] This crisis has shown how a party in control of only one chamber of Congress (in this case, Republicans in control of the House of Representatives but not the Senate or the Presidency) can have significant influence if it chooses to block the routine raising of the debt limit.[19]"

"Initially wanted a "clean" increase or unconditional raise to the debt ceiling with no spending cuts attached,[59][60] as has historically been the norm for Congressional votes on the debt ceiling[citation needed]"

The two statements that are cited are from a blogger and a medical TV commentator. I don't know if its own section is justified but I think a paragraph with your information would be good to balance these other statements out.-Unforgettable fan (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Credit downgrade and further turmoil in the markets

I think it would be useful to note this at the end of the opening section that in the coming days, US debt was downgraded, and the next week the markets (mostly because of the European debt crisis and the possibilities of a double-dip recession in the US) were in turmoil. Although the turmoil in the markets are not necessarily attributed to the debt ceiling crisis, I think it gives a good context of the atmosphere of the world economy, and also because of the fact that these 3 events (debt ceiling negotiations, US debt downgrade, and market volatility) all followed one another in a matter of days.

What do you think?-- And Rew 13:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the third (last) paragraph of the lead already deals with most of this. You could add a few short items at the end of the United States debt-ceiling crisis#Timeline section. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the third paragraph after posting the above in the discussion board. I thought it would provide a better perspective to the whole economic and financial situation that followed it. -- And Rew 06:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential reference for an update

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9R17N8G1.htm -- Bloomberg Business Week, 11/15/11 -- GOP hopefuls oppose potential deficit deal -- Jo3sampl (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage format, search engine templates, archiving.

There is no archiving on this talkpage, I'll be happy to add it if there are no objections, I do that to any talkpage I see that is getting a bit too long.

• United States debt-ceiling crisis

I added this search template to the page earlier, which was removed with the following comment. 14:15, 5 December 2011‎ JRSpriggs (talk | contribs)‎ (112,982 bytes) (Undid revision 464211848 by Penyulap (talk)this template appears to be spamming for "Russia Today".)

I don't believe it's spam, I have no connection to RT, the reason I added it is because I made it, and notice that that website has a lot of info on this article's subject that's all. There are a number of search templates for talkpages to choose from, however some of them are more complicated, and scan for things that aren't news, like books and scientific papers. Frankly they don't do anywhere near as good a job for this particular subject as the Rtne template does. The template to search MSN news returns two results, whereas the template I made to search RT news returns 75 articles specific to this topic, I think that is a significant advantage to editors obviously.

---

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

---

---

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

---

MSN Search: 2011_United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis/Archive_1 News

---

If you like I can add any of these, although I think that the first one looks the best, as seen here. Of course, if anyone doesn't want people searching for sources and information on this article topic, I'm happy to leave it alone. I don't want to tread on anyones toes. Penyulap _talk 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting inappropriately placed material in lead

HedgeFundTrader (talk · contribs) made this reversion of my reversion of two edits by 208.54.64.246 (talk · contribs). My reversion was done for two reasons: (1) The placement of an in-line reference at the very beginning of the article, even before the first word of ordinary text, is completely unprecedented and improper. Such references should be placed immediately following the text which they justify. (2) He added two paragraphs to the lead which deal with details related to the credit rating downgrade of US Treasuries and related securities. This material is off-topic in this article. This article is about the fight over raising the debt ceiling, not about the downgrade. There is a separate article about the downgrade, namely United States federal government credit-rating downgrade, 2011. Any such material should be placed there, not here. Even if these details were appropriate for this article, they would not be appropriate in the lead because it is supposed to be an overview. Consequently, I will revert again. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Replacing fractional reserve with full reserve banking

I don't know what to think of this: "A revolutionary paper by the International Monetary Fund claims that one could eliminate the net public debt of the US at a stroke, and by implication do the same for Britain, Germany, Italy, or Japan." -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9623863/IMFs-epic-plan-to-conjure-away-debt-and-dethrone-bankers.html It links to the IMF staff paper at [1]. I saw this being discussed here. Paum89 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Debt ceiling

The Debt Ceiling section indicates that the ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962 AND 68 times since 1960. One of these obviously has to be wrong. It cannot be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsied8 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

2012-2013 debt ceiling crisis

Dear Fellow Editors: I suggest adding a section about the December 31, 2012 date that the US will exceed its borrowing limit. It is tied into the fiscal cliff.

Dear RoyGoldsmith,

The hat note is fine because of the parallel reporting with the fiscal cliff. If both are resolved at the same time, even then, it should be separate articles with links to each other not merged into one article because what would be the title of the merged article, United States fiscal cliff and 2013 debt-ceiling debate? It would be easier for casual reader to search for the article's title separately and then click on a see also link or a wikilink inside of the article. Also, the short title will likely appear higher on a search list for the casual reader.

As for the title of the article about the 2013 period of the United States debt-ceiling crisis, the 2011 period and 2013 period debates should be rolled into one article under two subsections and use the title you originally created. However, I will defer to you and other editors of the United States debt-ceiling crisis article.Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Copied by Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)