File talk:USDebt.png

Fraction of GDP?

On the chart when it says debt as a fraction of the GDP is that stating what the percentage of GDP the debt was? --71.225.152.190 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is 100 * debt / gdp. PDBailey (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's write "percentage", not "fraction" in the label for the graph. Econn (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deflator and "no original research"

Above the tabled data, it's stated that the deflator is the GDP deflator, but it appears to me that the data is actually for the composite outlay deflator (table 10.1 [1]).

Which deflator should be used? Unless someone come up with published data on U.S debt in real terms, per "no original research" policy, I propose not to do any original calculations. Also, the debt series in constant dollars does not bring sufficient knowledge on debt development: it does not account for increasing population over time or for larger real economy size. With the data in hand, I propose to present only the graph for debt per GDP. Econn (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WRT the first accusation that this deflators are from table 10.1 and not 1.3, guilty as charged. But they are also from 1.3 since they are identical. PDBailey (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A published source for a similar chart

In case anyone worries about WP:NOR, the same data (debt as percentage of GDP) have been compiled into a very similar chart by zFacts: [2]. The main difference is that the zFacts chart includes some additional information -- vertical lines to indicate each presidential administration, and color-coding to show when the percentage was rising and when it was falling.

We can use the zFacts chart if we want, without any copyright problem. The website says: "Material on zFacts.com may be used freely provided its meaning is not deliberately distorted and zFacts is cited. If used on another web site, zFacts.com must be given a normal HTML link." ([3]) JamesMLane t c 09:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of license is compatible with the CC license. I think, especially in light of this, this image falls under WP:OI. PDBailey (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that it is compatible, but I'm no CC-by-SA maven. If it is, then we can use any chart on zFacts. If it isn't, but if there's no other objection to substituting the zFacts chart, I'd be willing to undertake the effort of asking zFacts to license this specific chart under GFDL and CC-by-SA so that we can use it. JamesMLane t c 06:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are several objections. (1) it says zfacts.com on it, this is not allowed. (2) There is a bizare horizontal bar seperating Bush and Obama (suggesting Obama took over because the debt reached a level, not the date). (3) The message is targeted about Regan Bush, Bush, not Debt in general (the topic of the article).

Would you like this graph to have the presidents on it? I would be open to that if others would too. PDBailey (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses:

(1) Why is it not allowed to credit the author? In fact, under the GFDL, isn't it required?

(2) The horizontal bar is a little confusing but hardly bizarre. To keep the format consistent, there would've been a vertical bar separating the Bush and Obama administrations. The problem is that the Obama administration is still so young that there wouldn't be anywhere close to enough room to add "Obama" at the bottom. The author chose to turn the bar sideways.

(3) The message isn't targeted Reagan, Bush, Bush. It shows every administration and the course of the debt during that time. It uses black to show administrations during which the debt decreased and red to show administrations during which it increased. That all the red lines are under three Republican presidents doesn't mean that the chart-maker is targeting those three. As per Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Suppressing valid information, just because it might discomfit some Republicans, would be nonneutral.

Yes, I believe that including vertical lines to mark changes in administration would be a useful addition and would not confuse any of the information already presented. JamesMLane t c 05:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the other two but (1) is a prima face deal breaker. Wikipedia does not allow images that have a webpage or named credits on it. PDBailey (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow, "digital watermarking or credits in the image itself." if the image is user created, only if it is licensed. I started a discussion on the ridiculousness of this [[4]]. PDBailey (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to the presidents, I didn't see that that was the point of the red versus black. However, I would stick with the fact that the debt article is about the debt per se not, the President of the United States and the debt. I would think if anything, you would want to look at the legislature and the debt, but I realize that they usually let the President do most of the work on the budget so. I am not arguing against having, i.e., a table that shows President regime and real debt change with color coding, I just don't think it belongs in the main debt figure. PDBailey (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

non OR

Here is another link [5] that has deflated the debt. PDBailey (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[Discussions above forwarded from en:File talk:USDebt.png by Athaenara (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)]

gross debt and public debt

Hello. Please explain in the image description exactly what the graph is measuring. Please explain what "gross debt" and "public debt" is referring to on the chart.

I am trying to figure out what is public debt and what is private debt. Also, is this covering only Federal government debt, or all levels of government? Does gross debt include private debt?

Does "national debt" in the chart on this page, http://zfacts.com/p/318.html , refer to all government debt at all levels of government?

See also:

• Category:Debt-to-GDP ratio of the United States
• Category:Government debt-to-GDP ratio of the United States
• Category:Private debt in the United States

I found this: en:National debt by U.S. presidential terms#Public debt

"the public debt is the gross debt less the amount the government owes itself."

I added it to the image description. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

a little hard to understand

The table is a little hard to follow. The top graph does not seem to be illustrating any of the data in the table. What is being graphed here, and how does it relate to the table below?

The data in the table seems unlikely. According to the table, the total US national debt in 1960 was just a quarter of a million dollars. It was really so low that a single millionaire could have paid it off out of his pocket? What is the number in column 2? Please clarify. 128.156.10.80 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cols 2 & 3 are in millions (which I have added to the Data sources section). So the fed debt held by the public in 1960 was 237 billion (in 1960 dollars). In the chart it is adjusted for inflation, so 1960's 237 billion is adjusted to 2 trillion in 2010 dollars. Nurg (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate labelling of the 2 lines

It has black line as "gross debt" and red line as "public debt". Actually they are both public debt. They should be labelled "gross public debt" and "net public debt". Nurg (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)