Talk:National debt of the United States
Quote by President Reagan
I don't quite know of the wording to use in the section on the debt ceiling, but I think something needs to be added to contextualize President Reagan's quote; specifically, it needs to be clear that the debt ceiling and the national debt were both much lower during this term than now, even when adjusting for inflation. As the article stands now, there is a statement that the Tea Party and financial experts aren't worried about a default immediately juxtaposed with one of Reagan appearing to contradict that statement. I don't believe there is a contradiction, since the situation was so different then compared to now. Does anyone have any ideas on how to make this clear? Sadly, my writing abilities are failing me at the moment. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 21:33, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
- OK, so are you saying that there is no contradiction because the possibility of a default is somehow lower now that the debt ceiling and national debt are much larger? If this is true, perhaps it should be explained immediately after the Reagan quote. --AaronT 17:36, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
In 2007 Mtur added a link to a website I think called Zfacts. He was later blocked indefinitely. The article he linked to is critical of deficit spending and blames Republican leaders for engaging in it.
But neither of these facts is the reason I am removing the link. I'm removing it because when the author of the webpage does compare Democratic and Republican deficit spending, he doesn't mention the essential purposes for which deficit spending was performed, i. e. Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush fighting the Cold War; George W. Bush fighting the war against terrorism. These wars provided security to later generations, a security which these generations would or will not need to put their lives at risk to enjoy. It seems fair that they should shoulder some of the financial burden.
I feel this ignorance in distinguishing between debts for essential and non-essential purposes before attacking their accumulation disqualifies the author of the website from providing an opinion about the United States economy. VargasMilan 14:51, 9 July 2014 (EDT)
Shouldn't this page be titled "United States National Debt"? That's what it is about. It doesn't define or describe the general concept of national debt. JohnWe 19:45, 2 September 2014 (EDT)
Revising population estimates
From Intercensal Estimates of the United States Resident Population plus Armed Forces Overseas by Age and Sex: Apr. 1, 1990-Apr. 1, 2000.
Oct. 1, 1994: 264,301,370 (line 5569)
Oct. 1, 1995: 267,455,751 (line 6806)
Oct. 1, 1996: 270,581,435 (line 8043)
Oct. 1, 1997: 273,852,326 (line 9280)
Oct. 1, 1998: 277,003,409 (line 10517)
Oct. 1, 1999: 280,203,284 (line 11754)
From Monthly Intercensal Resident Population Estimates for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010.
Oct. 1, 2000: 282,957,962
Oct. 1, 2001: 285,689,399
Oct. 1, 2002: 288,379,244
Oct. 1, 2003: 290,916,101
Oct. 1, 2004: 293,573,356
Oct. 1, 2005: 296,306,871
Oct. 1, 2006: 299,159,981
Oct. 1, 2007: 302,026,271
Oct. 1, 2008: 304,858,602
Oct. 1, 2009: 307,518,237
St. Louis Federal Reserve source includes Armed forces in population after April 1, 2000. But where the Census Bureau published this is unknown.
The exact data I used pre-April 1, 2000 from the U.S. Census Population Clock did not include the Armed Forces population abroad. I intend to revise the population figures using the St. Louis Federal Reserve data which matches the resident + armed forces U.S. Census data set to which I linked, and which, guesstimating from the difference, would logically be expected to continue that full count in its post-April 1, 2000 counts. VargasMilan 23:36, 3 December 2014 (EST)
For example, the October 1, 2000 St. Louis Federal Reserve figure is 283,201,000, which is about 243,000 different than the civilian intercensal estimate. VargasMilan 23:39, 3 December 2014 (EST)
See also list
JDano: It's clear to me that TheAmericanRedoubt meant this list as a sort of hybrid between see also items and a navigation box containing various items about a subject. The subject seems to be U. S. national debt, and the first item you pointed out as irrelevant, Obama's donor list, could be relevant to persons wishing to engage in political action in response to the enormous debt Obama has accumulated and is of secondary relevance through the primarily relevant theme he stated, government spending via crony capitalism.
And the second item you pointed out as irrelevant, The United Nations, again is of secondary relevance to the primarily relevant theme of big government, as the United Nations would be a beneficiary of the loss of national power caused by large debts.
You're clearly not a friend to these themes: first you called it clutter, then you tried to dismiss it as irrelevant, then you tried to erase its thematic structure in the name of consistency, then you expected me to "compromise" along the lines of the previous actions, on your now maintaining that it ought to be removed altogether. It doesn't look like to me you are acting on rational principles but rather on personal preferences of what ideas to which the public should not have access. VargasMilan (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Please do not misinterpret my motives. I believe that Conservapedia can be a reliable and credible alternative to Wikipedia, even though we have adopted much of WP software and overall encyclopedia format. (I no longer edit Wikipedia and have come here to work instead so that home-schooled students may have a suitable alternative.) For Conservapedia to meet those needs, edits "must be informative, family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip" (Commandment 3). When we put an idea in a sentence in the main part of the article, it should have footnotes to sources where the student can verify what we are saying. If an article is reasonable well-written, the ideas and sentences will flow within an overall context. A "See also" list is not the place to add unrelated ideas. According to the Style Manual, "The See also section consists of a bullet list of article names without pipes. Only one article name should appear on each line. Only articles that are directly relevant to the topic of the article should be included on the See also list." However, by including Obama donor list on the see also list rather than in the text above promises the reader that if they click on the link they will find relevant information. The donor list article is only two sentences long and the relationship to the US National Debt is not obvious to the reader.
- So, I would not object to someone adding a paragraph (with proper sources) explaining that Obama donors lead to excess federal spending. (Although other sources would explain that donors to Appropriations Committee Chairmen also lead to excess federal spending.) But having a link to the two sentence donor list article without any explanation leaves the reader confused.
- The only theme that bothers me is that bankers are Jews and gangsters. That is name-calling and gossip. So, I have been working on removing that theme from a number of articles, which lead me to this one.
- I respect the amount of work that you have put into this article. Let's not allow its credibility to be diminished by someone copying and pasting the same, ill-formatted "see also" list into a large number of articles. That is just a lazy alternative to writing new material. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2016 (EST)