Talk:2013 United States debt-ceiling crisis

Brief explanation for creating this page
Hi, I've created this page 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. One editor who responded to me there suggested creating this new article, as a solution to the conundrum of where this information should go. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I work for the The Heritage Foundation and while I've aimed to make this a neutral article, I encourage others to look over it and edit as needed, particularly adding information that might be missing so far. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Crisis or debate?
It strikes me that this is more of a "debate" than a "crisis" at this point, given the window until May to resolve these issues. Does the preponderance of sources refer to this specifically as a crisis? If not, I think that 2013 United States debt-ceiling debate would be a more appropriate title. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Anthony, looking at the sources again it seems that both "crisis" and "debate" are used frequently. I think that "United States debt-ceiling debate 2013" would be fine, but I see that title currently redirects to the Treasury section of the United States fiscal cliff article. Before creating this article I had originally suggested adding information about the 2013 debt-ceiling crisis/debate into the United States fiscal cliff article, but the discussion on the talk page suggested that this information would be better suited for a stand alone article.


 * I see no problem with changing the article's name, but can you correct the redirect issue? Let me know if I can be of further help. Thurmant (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I fixed the redirect. It's a bit tricky, but what you have to do is click on the small link "(Redirected from X)" at the top of the page to change it—it's easy to miss.
 * As for the title, I feel like there's much less of a "crisis" mentality this time than in 2011 because the Republicans are considered to be much less willing to go over the brink. There are people who are sticklers for consistency, though, so I'll give a little more time for anyone to put in more input before I make a change. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm going to initiate the move. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone really think that this is not a crisis by now? Would a move back not be in order? Jack Bornholm (talk)

Addition to article
I've just added a new section titled "Suspension until May 2013" to this article. I created the article in January after discussions on other Wikipedia talk pages (see message above) and this new section summarizes recent developments to this debate. While I often use this account to request edits when I have a conflict of interest, I have not used any sources published by my employer The Heritage Foundation in this addition, so I have gone ahead and made this edit myself. If anyone has any questions or comments please ask, I have this page on my watchlist. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being clear about your possible COI. I have some problems with the added text. Too much attention is given to the balanced budget amendment proposal. There is not an inherent relationship between the current debt ceiling limit and a balanced budget amendment. It looks like only one of your sources (Miller) discusses both an amendment and the debt limit, and it does not imply a clear relationship between the two. The current text may have problems with WP:OR especially the synthesis aspect. Maybe Republicans will tie an amendment to raising the debt ceiling in the future, but at the moment it doesn't seem like this article should give significant space to potential balanced budget amendments. At the very least the line "the balanced budget amendment was supported by individual states including the North Carolina House of Representatives, which filed a resolution for a federal amendment to the Constitution in mid February, citing the state-level balanced budget and debt limit legislation in place in 49 out of 50 states in the U.S.[13]" should go because its just promoting a balanced budget amendment based on an opinion piece that doesn't even mention the current debt ceiling issue.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath
May 19 has come and gone. What happened? Meneth (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Looming Default
Forget about May... it is now the September 30 and a government shutdown is less than 12 hours away with a government default slated for October 17. Perhaps this page should be updated since this is now a real crisis rather than a debate!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.126.33 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

About 48 hours, give or take, left before the deadline... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.126.33 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is questionable whether the government would have actually had to default when its authority to issue more debt ended. The article claims that "treasury informed...of the impending default..." This claim in the article contains no citation as to its source. Randy549 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of the dispute depends on what you consider to be default. Some Democrats consider default on Social Security payments (or food stamps, payments to government contractors, etc.) to be equally as bad as default on Treasury securities. Even if one limits consideration to Treasury securities, the unpredictability of tax revenues means that the Treasury could be caught short of enough funds to make payments on the interest or principle of those securities. If potential creditors of the United State become frightened, they might cease lending funds and force a default at any time. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

FACE AMOUNT of DEBT or Mark to Market ? Important Accounting/Technical question
Is the DEBT LIMIT LEGALLY DEFINED AS A MAXIMUM *FACE AMOUNT* of Debt, or by some other means ? As you are aware, bonds can be valued at above or below Par. For example, a 30 year treasury paying a 20 % coupon would probably be valued considerably MORE than PAR. If the LEGAL requirement pertains to the FACE AMOUNT of the debt issued, this would offer the treasury considerable leeway.

SPECIFICALLY, HOW IS THE DEBT LIMIT DEFINED ? Is it the total FACE AMOUNT of outstanding Treasury obligations or something different ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.119.2 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A very good question. It took me a little while to track down where that is in law.
 * See Title 31 of the United States Code, section 3101, at Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute gives the text of this section.
 * It is difficult for me to understand it, but it appears that you are correct. The face amount is what is used. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested multi-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: not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 05:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

– Shall more concise proposed titles based on comma disambiguation (and WP:NCE if applicable) be used instead? George Ho (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2013 → United States debt-ceiling crisis, 2013
 * United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 → United States debt-ceiling crisis, 2011
 * Oppose. First, I don't think switching an "of" for a comma makes the tiles appreciably more concise. Second, I think that "Foo crisis of [year]" is the more natural way to refer to such events. bd2412  T 20:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A single-character shaved off the page title is not "concision" if it makes the reader think longer about what the title means. This kind of move isn't worth it. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per reasoning of BD2412 and "168". Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:54, 19 October 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.