Talk:2011 United States debt-ceiling crisis

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 and even the headers themselves (say "Consequences of not raising the debt ceiling") will be hopelessly out of date within a month.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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.