Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States

Concerns over neutrality

This article has nbeen written by people who do not understand the difference between presidential budget requests, congressional authorization acts, and appropriations. Some are trying to lump Department of Defense with Homeland Security, which is frankly ridiculous: customs has nothing to do with the USMC. Actual budget figures (particularly defense) should refer to the appriate authorization acts of Congress (example: the FY 2012 Defense Appropriation Act), not third party organizations, which have artificially added in erroneous data, and aggrigated disimilar budget aothorizations. In short: know what you are talking about! This data is readilly available from Congress! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It may help this article if it were written by someone without an interest in the subject matter, as strange as that sounds. This article gives unfair emphasis on Medicare and Medicaid. This is particularly inaccurate as the issue is much older than these extremely recent budget costs. In fact, the very same graphs on this page even show this.

Medicare and Medicaid are the primary long-term budget threat according to CBO.Farcaster (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The section Specific Proposals doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, at least in its current form. For one thing, it only shows two proposals and both are from within U.S. parliament. Even within the United States, economists will suggest ideas that neither major party thinks of and not acknowledging this with enough emphasis is giving undue weight to the official party policies.

Several specific general proposals are now included. Further, in the sections above that follow the major revenue and spending categories, more narrow proposals are also included.Farcaster (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, these sections say "The Republican Party" and "President Obama" which is an odd decision. For one thing, the Republican Party is not united on solutions to the problem. Similarly, writing the two main voting blocs in this manner makes this issue look like a partisan problem and yet both parties have had control of the Presidency and Congress during the periods under dicussion.

Section includes several proposals by Republicans. Some additional clarity on the Republican platform would be helpful or reference to Mitt Romney's proposals.Farcaster (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That entire section reeks of Republican propaganda to be honest. I'm not American so maybe that's why. Vision Insider (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Article is non-neutral and deserves tag. The ideas that deficits are necessarily a Bad Thing, or a Problem, or are currently Too Big or caused by "entitlements" or social spending, or that there is a non-zero risk to the financial health of the US government - or that this even has any meaning - is quite disputed in RS's, as opposed to the less neutral MSM heavily tilting to the side overrepresented here.John Z (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Added some discussion up front that not everyone agrees deficit reduction makes sense when the economy is slow.Farcaster (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Too many changes for me to review them with a cold, but the latest version looks significantly more accurate and neutral than the late October ones. Thanks. John Z (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe these concerns are valid and so I am removing the tag. EllenCT (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, banned sockpuppet. 2600:8802:5913:1700:7111:D47C:EFAF:E01B (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Long-term risks to financial health of federal government

This section has three issues.

1) The issue does not elaborate on the risks specified in the title. For instance, while this section mentions that the U.S. AAA credit rating is at risk (an accurate assessment as this has since occured), there is little else to explain what these risks are.

2) Criticisms of U.S. public spending are not universal. Both within and without the United States there is considerable evidence suggesting that reducing public spending is not a feasible solution to their budget issues, nor is it the cause. Economists will often point to the extremely low tax revenues collected in the U.S. This article as a whole appears to focus too much on the Medicare and Medicaid spending. It doesn't make sense to do this, as these spending projects did not come into existence until well after the U.S. federal budget debt levels began to swell.

3) Not reputable sources. Opinion pieces are a good supplement for other sources. However, on their own they do not offer enough information. If this was a film review, then an opinion piece is appropriate. Otherwise, an opinion piece is not a credible source. This is particularly true of newspapers with vested interests in the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Insider (talk • contribs) 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Apologies for fogetting to sign this. Vision Insider (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Data needed

I'm looking for a chart or table with U.S. deficit figures for various years. "United States deficit" redirects to an article on the U.S. debt, which doesn't seem to have any deficit figures. I linked to this article, but I can't find the figures here either. We need an article on the U.S. deficit, with a readable table and/or chart (not just some fuzzy one that the user has to link to -- though that would be better than nothing).Kdammers (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You want the CBO budget and economic outlook, which contains a link to the latest historical tables.Farcaster (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• CBO Historical Tables

Or you can use the FRED database:

FRED Database-federal budget deficit Click on "edit graph" and then download the data into excel.

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) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image

I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletions

Please explain the reasons for [2] (true statements or not?) and [3] (correct data or not?) If there are subtleties I am missing please elaborate on them. Pltr6 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized to focus more on specific deficit reduction proposals. The core section is now organized by major revenue and spending buckets, so key arguments can be fitted into those buckets. General commentary has been substantially separated and moved down in the article, but commentary around specific proposals should go in the proper section. I'll keep adding sources and proposals over time.Farcaster (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we covering everything in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/8-deficit-reducers-ethical_b_2326070.html ? 67.41.200.185 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/25/brookings-wants-to-revamp-the-federal-budget-here-are-their-11-best-ideas/ has some more which should probably be added. Neo Poz (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Does borrowing improving credit-worthiness?

Re "nonsense about borrowing improving credit-worthiness", this Atlantic article seems to concur. What summary about negative real borrowing rates would be appropriate for the introduction? 70.59.14.20 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Medicare not in Intro?

Medicare is the primary deficit threat over the long-run, as it is projected to keep growing relative to GDP while other parts of the budget stay about the same or decline. Every government agency and CBO say it is not sustainable. I think it belongs in the intro.Farcaster (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Medicare not in the intro for the simple reason that your statement is factually incorrect. Not every government department in the US agrees that healthcare is the reason the US is indebted and not every government in the world is American. Economists outside America are perplexed as to why US tax rates are so low and why military spending is so high. They see those two things as the absolute reasons that the USA is in the midst of a debt crisis. That's not a fact either, though, just speculation.

It really helps for articles like this if they're written by a blend of those within the country and those outside the country affected. There is far too much emphasis placed on healthcare spending within America as an economic burden and yet the fact that all other Western nations have nationalised healthcare programs prove that Medicare is not the reason the USA has trillions of outstanding monies.

Vision Insider (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Medicare & Medicare are in the intro as they are the primary driver of the long-term budget deficit. They grow relative to GDP while other major categories do not. Here is an example article below. Farcaster (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Bartlett-NYT-Long Term Budget Challenge

I don't think that's a reliable source. In fact, I've just noticed that Bartlett has been quoted a lot in this article. It's a lot of emphasis placed on just one opinion. Also, I don't think opinion pieces, especially those by politicians, count as reliable sources. Vision Insider (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the definitive source, the CBO long-term budget outlook. Bartlett tends to use CBO data a lot, so I find him credible. The chart on page 114 of the document shows how the healthcare expenditures are projected to rise relative to GDP, while other major categories stay the same or decline. Social Security only rises about 1% GDP. pages 11, 22, 24, and 42 also are helpful. The best book on this I know is "Where does the money go?" by Bittle & Johnson. It is a great reference on the budget debate and has a ton of charts and cited sources.

• CBO-Long Term Budget Outlook

Do opinion pieces by politicians count as reliable sources?

Non-Admin Closure: The consensus shows opinion pieces are reliable sources for discussion or commentary about the opinion author's opinion. However, opinion pieces may include facts that are supported by other reliable sources. For the purpose of building a well-sourced encyclopedia, the opinion piece itself is not a reliable source, and editors should instead use the original supporting source. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are references throughout this article that come from newspaper opinion pieces written by Bruce Bartlett. He is a former staffer to several politicians (it doesn't matter which ones). Do opinion pieces written by politicians or their staff count as reliable sources on an economic matter? Vision Insider (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Responses to RFCs

• Depends. The question being formally asked here is Do opinion pieces written by politicians or their staff count as reliable sources on an economic matter? however I believe that the editor asking the question already knows the answer.

Opinion pieces should not be considered to be fact based unless they are themselves backed by testable, legitimate sources, however opinion pieces are notoriously unreliable, failing WP:NPOV and in any event are almost always motivated by ideologies or are motivated by financial incentives.

My opinion is that no politicin, no staffer, no contractor, no corporate spokesperson, nobody with a financial or ideological motivation for speaking should be used as a legitimate citation or reference. Exceptions are when the text is highly backed with testable, falsifiable, confirmed citations and references -- and opinion pieces are notoriously vague, unspecific, and are usually specifically designed to mislead people reading said opinion pieces.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia policy is to attempt to remain encyclopedic, and any statement by an individual with an agenda, economic incentive, or obvious mental difficulty should be conveyed as such within Wikipedia text. Wikipedia editors have a volunteer duty to not pass-along lies and bullshit spewed by politicians and corporations on to people who consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source. Damotclese (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Depends. I would consider some former government officials reliable sources, and sometimes they have a big-picture view that allows them to adeptly summarize a particular situation. However, if the question is one of fact (unemployment went up or unemployment went down for example) there are usually other sources whose objectivity is less open to question. Because even if they are completely correct, an association with partisan politics will make them contentious sources for people on the other side of the political divide. Now, if they are being used to cast some special highlight on a set of facts that would not be available from someone else (like: what in the world was the president thinking anyway) then they might be a very good source indeed. Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Depends Ditto to what the others have said. While I appreciate the concern, if you have serious issues with something you can be WP:BOLD and remove it. I don't think the 2 citations to Bartlett are a big deal - in one of them he is quoted (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) but it doesn't seem to add much or take much away from the article. If you eliminate anyone who might have an agenda or who has any relationship to some sort of interest, you've got basically zero sources. Also, this isn't really the best area to have this type of philosophical or big-picture discussion - it's probably better at WP:RS or something. We generally want to stay pretty focused on improving the article and specific issues related to the article. II | (t - c) 02:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Bruce Bartlett is reliable. He left the Republican party when he could no longer agree with their policies. In my experience, he has been an extremely accurate commentator on tax, fiscal, and monetary policy, as well as macroeconomics in general and deficit reduction in particular. EllenCT (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Depends They are reliable sources for documenting the opinions of the person in question not for stating "facts" in "Wikipedia voice". They need to be attributed and used sparingly.  Volunteer Marek  06:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612163335/http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html to http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916093844/http://www.cepr.org:80/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight62.pdf to http://www.cepr.org/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight62.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Deficit reduction in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708140539/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10840 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10840
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120020448/http://www.htisec.com/en/research/shownews.jsp?newsType=DJ&newsid=c-20120808DN019794 to http://www.htisec.com/en/research/shownews.jsp?newsType=DJ&newsid=c-20120808DN019794
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/PDFDownload.aspx?ar=2849
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130103958/http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ to http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219200328/http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/Charts.htm to http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/charts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101113072530/http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf to http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708124422/http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/zero-democrats-vote-proceed-obama-budget-fails-0-97 to http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/zero-democrats-vote-proceed-obama-budget-fails-0-97
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308072058/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111174416/http://www.charlierose.com/download/transcript/10697 to http://www.charlierose.com/download/transcript/10697

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)