Talk:2011 United States debt-ceiling crisis

Trillion Dollar Coin

For the attention of anyone interested, I've created an article on the Trillion Dollar Coin concept, now only briefly addressed at United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis#Minting_coins_in_extremely_high_denominations, as it is getting more attention substantial enough to merit a separate article, I believe.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

United States debt-ceiling crisis → United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 – This article should moved to specify that it covers the 2011 debate on the debt-ceiling.

I attempted to move this page earlier (because I thought it might be non-controversial), but another editor moved it back[1] citing WP:Crystal. I don't think Crystal applies at all. Setting aside current events, having a year in the title is informative and specifies that the article covers the 2011 episode. I'm not currently trying to create a "crisis of 2013" article, which would possibly violate CRYSTAL, I'm only trying to clarify possible ambiguity. Many would reasonably say that we are once again in a "debt-ceiling crisis" because we have once again reached the debt limit and the treasury has begun using its "extraordinary measures." Even if there is not agreement that we are once again in a "crisis", we are in the middle of another debt ceiling debate and adding "2011" to this article title helps distinguish the 2011 episode from current (and any future) events.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at a CRS report and it refers to a debit limit crisis in 2002.[2] I think this makes the CRYSTAL issue clearly moot since there have already been documented crises in other years, so a year should be specified here (whether or not we have an article for 2002... or 2013).--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support It looks to me like the article is primarily 2011 focused, and the new discussion is on the "fiscal cliff" page. Not sure why there is opposition to this. -Kai445 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support there was a debt-ceiling crisis in 1995. United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996; the current title should become a disambiguation page. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. My only reservation was going to be the possible lack of other articles. But as the anon points out, we have other articles. So the case for this move is clear cut in my mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The anon editor makes a good point, and I rescind my objection. The current page should become a dab page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- Another crisis is expected in a few months, and no doubt the issue will have arisen several times before. Whether it becomes a crisis depends on how quickly Congress is willing to raise the borrwing limit for the biggest debtor nation on earth. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, though I prefer the title 2011 United States debt-ceiling crisis as being slightly more succinct. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment -- Perhaps the word "crisis" should be dropped from the title when it's actually moved. The subject doesn't fit any of the criteria outlined in the article Financial crisis and if this kind of thing becomes routine, I don't see how it can be called a crisis. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The debt ceiling crises aren't considered "financial crises." I consider them to be "political crises," but that's a very loose term. Many sources consider these events to be crises of some sort. That said, I don't think it's necessary to have "crisis" in the title, but I don't know what you want as an alternative.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't have an alternative. "Debate", "issue", and "negotiation" really don't work. The main topic is the exceeding or potential exceeding of the ceiling, but a title like, "Approaching the United States debt ceiling in 2011" is clumsy. Since these can be considered spin-offs from United States debt ceiling, maybe just "United States debt ceiling (year)". Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synthesis on debt, deficits, and interest rates

I added a synthesis template to the "Recent concern about budget deficits and long-term debt" section. Few of these sources make any mention mention of the debt ceiling. These sources are used to imply that the debt ceiling relates to the United States's has a debt problem and the debt ceiling somehow addresses it. This is a point of view, and not one being made by the sources used here. It's fine to say "Sen X. argues that the debt ceiling can't be raised because of unprecedented debt" or "Think Tank Y says raising the debt ceiling will lead to uncontrollable spending," but using sources unrelated to the topic to advance an argument is a classic synthesis violation. This also goes for the "negative interest rates" section that looks like it was created to balance out the debt section. Both sections should be deleted, or replaced with text that uses sources that actually reference the debt ceiling.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

New article for 2013

Hi, I've created a new article for United States debt-ceiling crisis 2013 and I'd like to invite editors here to help develop it.

I created the article because the existing articles on the debt ceiling and fiscal cliff do not discuss the 2013 debt-ceiling debate. I originally proposed adding a new section the United States fiscal cliff article, however editors there opposed adding in information on this topic to that article. And I saw that this page is being renamed to "United States debt-ceiling crisis 2011", which obviously means that 2013 information will not belong here. One editor who responded to me on the U.S. fiscal cliff Talk page suggested creating a new article, as a solution to the conundrum of where this information should go.

I'd like to mention that I'm an employee of The Heritage Foundation and while I've aimed to make it a neutral article, others should read it and edit as needed. In particular, I am sure there is much information that can be added. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2013 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Economically incoherent

The entire discussion in this article is completely incoherent and also completely uncritical of the fact that the entire debate on both sides of this alleged 'crisis' was founded in economic ignorance by people who think that 1) the U.S. government would have gone bankrupt (right after it had bailed-out the economy in 2008-2009) and 2) that this government which bailed out the banks, somehow 'borrows' the money it uses from that same currency 'using' source. It was (is) an ideological crisis, not an economic crisis.145.130.113.142 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

In the US, the treasury and the central bank are separate institutions. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)