document_title: Teletubbies

question_text: who played the sun baby in the original run of teletubbies

text: Teletubbies

text: Plot

text: The programme takes place in a grassy, floral landscape populated by rabbits with bird calls audible in the background. The main shelter of the four Teletubbies is an earth house known as the "Tubbytronic Superdome" implanted in the ground and accessed through a hole at the top or an especially large semicircular door at the dome's foot. The creatures co-exist with a number of strange contraptions such as the Noo-noo, the group's anthropomorphic blue vacuum cleaner, and the Voice Trumpets. The show's colourful, psychedelic setting was designed specifically to appeal to the attention spans of infants and unlock different sections of the mind while also educating young children of transitions that can be expected in life.

text: An assortment of rituals are performed throughout the course of every episode, such as the playful interactions between the Teletubbies and the Voice Trumpets, the mishaps caused by the Noo-noo, the footage of live children displayed on the screens in the Teletubbies' stomachs, and the magical event that occurs once per episode. The event differs each time; it is often caused inexplicably and is frequently strange yet whimsical. Each episode is closed by the Voice Trumpets and the narrator. The disappointed, reluctant, but eventually obedient Teletubbies bid farewell to the viewer as they go back to the Tubbytronic Superdome while the Sun baby sets.

text: Characters

text: Main characters

text:
Tinky Winky (played by Dave Thompson and Simon Shelton in the original series and by Jeremiah Krage in the revival series)[16] is the first Teletubby, as well as the largest and oldest of the group. He is covered in purple terrycloth and has a triangular antenna on his head. He almost always carries a red bag.
Dipsy (played by John Simmit in the original series and by Nick Kellington in the revival series)[17] is the second Teletubby. He is green and named after his antenna, which resembles a dipstick. Dipsy is the most stubborn of the Teletubbies, and will occasionally refuse to go along with the others' group opinion. His face is notably darker than the rest of the Teletubbies, and the creators have stated that he is black.[18]
Laa-Laa (played by Nikky Smedley in the original series and by Rebecca Hyland in the revival series)[17] is the third Teletubby. She is yellow and has a curly antenna. Laa-Laa is very sweet, likes to sing and dance, and is often shown looking out for the other Teletubbies. Her favourite toy is an orange rubber ball.
Po (played by Pui Fan Lee in the original series and by Rachelle Beinart in the revival series)[17] is the fourth Teletubby, as well as the shortest and youngest. She is red and has an antenna shaped like a stick used for blowing soap bubbles. Po normally speaks in a soft voice and has been stated by the show's creators to be Cantonese.[18]

text: Supporting characters

text:
The Noo-noo (operated by Mark Dean in the original series and Olly Taylor in the revival series)[19] is a conscientious vacuum cleaner who acts as both the Teletubbies' guardian and housekeeper. He hardly ever ventures outside the Tubbytronic Superdome, instead remaining indoors and constantly cleaning with his sucker-like nose. He communicates through a series of slurping and sucking noises.
The Voice Trumpets (voiced by Fearne Cotton, Jim Broadbent and Antonia Thomas in the revival series)[20] are several devices resembling periscopes that rise from the ground and interact with the Teletubbies, often engaging in games with them and serving as supervisors. They are the only residents of Teletubbyland who speak in complete sentences.
The Sun Baby (played by Jess Smith in the original series)[21] appears at the beginning and end of each episode. She acts as a wake-up call for the Teletubbies.
Numerous rabbits are found throughout Teletubbyland, and are depicted by several Flemish Giant rabbits. The Teletubbies enjoy watching them hop and play. The rabbits are the only type of Earth animal found in the land, and take residence in rabbit holes and bushes.
The Tubby Phone (voiced by Jane Horrocks)[20] is a character in the revival series, who transports the Teletubbies to the modern world.
The Tiddlytubbies (voiced by Teresa Gallagher) are baby Teletubbies appearing in the revival series. Their names are Mi-Mi, Daa Daa, Baa, Ping, RuRu, Nin, Duggle Dee and Umby Pumby.[22]

text: Release

text: On 31 March 1997, the first episode of Teletubbies aired on BBC2. It filled a timeslot previously held by Playdays. This schedule change initially received backlash from parents, but the show was not moved.[23] The programme's unconventional format quickly received attention from the media, and it was attracting two million viewers per episode by August.[24] In February 1998, The Sydney Morning Herald noted that it had "reached cult status" in less than a year on the air.[25]

text: Teletubbies has been aired in over 120 countries in 45 different languages.[26][27] In the United States, the series airs on Nickelodeon as part of the Nick Jr. block.[28][29] Episodes are also released through the Nick Jr. mobile application and on-demand services.[30][31] The original series is available as part of the Noggin subscription service in North America.[32][33] It had aired on PBS Kids until 2008. BBC Worldwide channels carry the series in most of Africa, Asia and Poland.[34] A Spanish dub airs on Clan in Spain.[35] In Greece, the series airs on Nickelodeon Greece.[36] NPO Zappelin carries the show in the Netherlands and MTVA airs it in Hungary.[34] In Australia and New Zealand, the series airs on CBeebies Australia[37] and ABC Kids. JimJam's Benelux feed airs the series and Ultra airs it in Serbia.[35] Teletubbies also airs on SIC in Portugal and e-Junior in the Middle East.[34]

text: Promotion

text: Merchandising

text: Golden Bear Toys distributed the first line of Teletubbies dolls shortly after the programme's debut.[38] They were sold internationally, with talking toys available in multiple languages.[39] Hasbro signed on to develop a new range of products in 1998.[40] In 1999, Microsoft UK released a set of interactive "ActiMates" toys based on the characters.[41] The Rasta Imposta company introduced Teletubbies costumes for children and adults in the same year.[42] Two educational video games featuring the characters were also released throughout the series' run.[43][44]

text: Teletubbies dolls were the top-selling Christmas toy in 1997.[45][46] Demand outstripped supply at most retailers, reportedly prompting many shops to ration them to one per customer.[47] In some cases, shoppers camped outside stores overnight in hopes of purchasing Teletubbies merchandise.[48][49] Fights over the toys broke out among parents and collectors on occasion.[50][51] Over one million dolls were sold in Britain by 25 December of that year, with Golden Bear representatives estimating that sales could have reached three million if supplies had been available.[52] The plush toys were named "Toy of the Year" by the British Association of Toy Retailers in 1998.[53]

text: Kids' meal tie-ins have been released at fast-food restaurants throughout North America. In May 1999, Burger King distributed a set of six Teletubbies plush toys.[54] They also included chicken nuggets shaped like the characters on their menu for a brief period of time.[55] Keychains modelled after the characters were available at McDonald's in April 2000.[56] These promotions became controversial among adults who believed they were intended to attract toddlers to high-fat food.[57] Psychiatrist Alvin Francis Poussaint considered the deals "troubling."[58] He voiced his opinion on the matter publicly, but did not take action against the companies.[59]

text: Two kiddie rides featuring the characters were manufactured by Jolly Roger.[60] They were available at select amusement parks and arcades, such as Chuck E. Cheese's and Fantasy Island.[61]

text: Overseas Teletubbies merchandise sales throughout the 1990s delivered €136 million in profits for the BBC.[62] By the time of the programme's cancellation, Teletubbies toys had generated over £200 million in revenue for co-creator Anne Wood alone.[63] In 2005, Chris Hastings and Ben Jones of The Daily Telegraph called Teletubbies "the most lucrative show in BBC television history."[64]

text: Live events

text: To commemorate the tenth anniversary of the premiere of Teletubbies, a series of events took place from March to April 2007.[65] The characters headlined an invitation-only event in London on 21 March 2007. They appeared in New York City's Times Square, Grand Central Terminal, and Apollo Theater. They were also interviewed on The Today Show in an episode that included the first televised appearance of the actors without their costumes. A partnership was formed with Isaac Mizrahi in which Mizrahi designed Teletubbies-inspired bags to be auctioned off to benefit charities. A new line of clothing was launched at the Pop-Up Shop[66] and other specialty stores. New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg announced 28 March 2007 "Teletubbies Day" and gave the key to the city to the Teletubbies. Following their show in New York, the Teletubbies went on their first live European tour, performing in London, Paris, Bremen, Darmstadt, Halle, Hamburg, Köln, and Hannover.[67]

text: In January 2016, costumed Teletubbies characters appeared at the American International Toy Fair.[68] In April 2016, the series' premiere on the Greek Nickelodeon channel was advertised with a series of appearances by the Teletubbies at malls throughout Athens.[69][70] This began with a live show at Avenue Mall on 16 April, which featured both the Teletubbies and a host from the network.[71] Throughout May 2016, the characters appeared on various breakfast television programmes to promote the upcoming series' debut on Nickelodeon in the United States.[72][73]

text: Reception

text: Critical reception

text: Common Sense Media's Emily Ashby found that "while the show's examples of cooperative play, wonder, and simple joys are gentle and pleasing, the creatures can still be a little grating to parents watching along."[74] Caryn James of The New York Times stated in her review that the episodes "offer a genuinely appealing combination: cute and slightly surreal."[75]

text: Upon the show's release, some critics feared that the characters' use of babbling in place of complete sentences would negatively affect young viewers' ability to communicate. The Daily Mirror reported in 1997 that many parents objected to its "goo-goo style" and "said the show was a bad influence on their children."[76] Marina Krcmar, a professor of communication at the Wake Forest University, told interviewers in 2007 that "toddlers learn more from an adult speaker than they do from a program such as Teletubbies."[77] However, Paul McCann of The Independent defended this aspect of the show, stating that "Teletubbies upsets those who automatically assume that progressive and creative learning is trendy nonsense. Those who believe that education should be strictly disciplined and functional, even when you're 18 months old. Thankfully Teletubbies isn't for them. It's for kids."[23]

text: Tinky Winky controversy

text: Tinky Winky started a controversy in 1999 because of his carrying a bag that looks much like a woman's handbag (although he was first "outed" by the academic and cultural critic Andy Medhurst in a letter of July 1997 to The Face).[78] He aroused the interest of Jerry Falwell in 1999 when Falwell alleged that the character was a "gay role model". Falwell issued an attack in his National Liberty Journal, citing a Washington Post "In/Out" column which stated that lesbian comedian Ellen DeGeneres was "out" as the chief national gay representative, while trendy Tinky Winky was "in". He warned parents that Tinky Winky could be a covert homosexual symbol, because "he is purple, the gay pride colour, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle: the gay pride symbol."[79] The BBC made an official response, explaining that "Tinky Winky is simply a sweet, technological baby with a magic bag."[80] Ken Viselman of Itsy-Bitsy Entertainment commented, "He's not gay. He's not straight. He's just a character in a children's series."[81]

text: In May 2007, Polish Ombudsman for Children, Ewa Sowińska revisited the matter, and planned to order an investigation.[82] "I noticed that he has a woman's handbag, but I didn't realise he's a boy," Sowińska said in a public statement. She asked her office's psychologists to look into the allegations. After the research in late 2007, she stated: "The opinion of a leading sexologist, who maintains that this series has no negative effects on a child's psychology, is perfectly credible. As a result I have decided that it is no longer necessary to seek the opinion of other psychologists."[83]

text: Despite the objections, the Independent on Sunday's editors included Tinky Winky as the only fictional character in the 2008 inaugural "Happy List", alongside 99 real-life adults recognised for making Britain a better and happier place.[84]

text: Cult following

text: Although the programme is aimed at children between the ages of one and four, it had a substantial cult following with older generations, mainly university and college students.[50][85][86] The mixture of bright colours, unusual designs, repetitive non-verbal dialogue, ritualistic format, and occasional forays into physical comedy appealed to many who perceived the programme as having psychedelic qualities.[87]

text: Analysis

text: Adam Roberts suggests that Teletubbies constitutes an example of radical utopian fiction. In this reading, the Teletubbies are an advanced culture which has eliminated all need to work, worry, or struggle in any way, and regressed into a childlike state. Roberts positions the Teletubbies as the endpoint of the science-fictional idea of paradise based on infantilisation – a more extreme version of the future humans in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the Eloi in H. G. Wells's The Time Machine (who are mentally childlike, but still physically and sexually adult). Following Sigmund Freud's insight that adult pleasure must mediate id and super-ego – gratification and anxiety – the only way to attain completely life is to surrender the super-ego, including sex. It follows that the broadcasts shown on the Teletubbies' in-set televisions are historical documentaries suggesting infantile existence as the paradigm, with the baby in the sun likely being the society's central machine intelligence. Roberts concludes:

text: In other words, the toddler-oriented aspect of the show can be read not in clumsily production-intention terms (‘the show is designed to appeal to toddlers’), but as a commentary upon the necessary infantilisation implicit in any utopian fantasy. It poses a question: to achieve a total happiness for all on the planet, once technology has removed the practical barriers, how far along the road towards infantile consciousness will it be necessary to travel? Will we become like the citizens of Huxley’s Brave New World? Or more infantile, like Wells’s Eloi? Or will we go the whole hog, and subsume our angst-ridden adult consciousnesses completely in the bright colours and satisfying repetitions of Teletubbyland? The enduring appeal of the Teletubbies to adults suggests, perhaps, this latter."[88]

text: Awards and nominations

text:
Year
Presenter
Award/Category
Nominee
Status
Ref.

1997

City of Birmingham Awards

Best Midlands-Produced Children's Television Production

Ragdoll Productions

Won

[89]

NHK Japan Prize

Grand Prize (Pre-School Education)

[90]

Royal Television Society

Children's Entertainment Award

[91]

1998

British Academy of Film and Television Arts

Best Pre-School Programme

[92]

Marketing Society Awards

New Product of the Year

Golden Bear Toys

[93]

Online Film & Television Association

Best Children's Series

Ragdoll Productions

Nominated

[94]

Television Critics Association

Outstanding Achievement in Children's Programming

[94]

UK Independent Television Productions Awards

NATS Children's Award

Won

[95]

1999

Daytime Emmy Awards

Outstanding Pre-School Children's Series

Nominated

[96]

Licensing Industry Merchandiser's Association

Overall License of the Year

Won

[97]

Independent Television Productions Awards

Nickelodeon UK Children's Award

[98]

Television Critics Association

Outstanding Achievement in Children's Programming

Nominated

[99]

2000

Independent Television Productions Awards

Audiocall Indie Children's Award

Won

[100]

Daytime Emmy Awards

Outstanding Pre-School Children's Series

Nominated

[101]

Royal Television Society

Education Award

Won

[102]

British Academy of Film and Television Arts

Outstanding Contribution in Children's Television and Film

Anne Wood

[103]

2002

British Academy of Film and Television Arts

Best Pre-School Live Action Series

Ragdoll Productions

[11]

2014

Prix Jeunesse

"Most Edgy" Programme of the Last 50 Years

[104]

Greatest Impact Programme of the Last 50 Years

[104]

text: Other media

text: In popular culture

text:
In episode 12 of The Vicar of Dibley, Laa-Laa and Po are bridesmaids. They hold the wedding-dress train of Alice Springs Tinker when she marries Hugo Horton.
In an episode of The Simpsons titled "Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder", Homer dresses up like a Teletubby to entertain Maggie, the Teletubbies are also referenced in 9 other episodes of the show, it is also known that one side character, Milhouse, wears Teletubbies underpants.
In the eleventh episode of the second series of The Chaser's War on Everything, the possibility of Tinky Winky being homosexual was parodied when the Chasers tested the Peel Hotel (in Collingwood, Melbourne, Victoria)'s gaydar with a Tinky Winky costumed figure that acted in a stereotypical homosexual fashion.
In 2012, during the second and third series of tvN's Saturday Night Live Korea, the programme was referenced as Yeouido Teletubbies (여의도 텔레토비) to portray the 2012 presidential election campaign. This experimental skit caused the popularity of SNL Korea's 'Crew', Kim Seul-gie and Kim Min-kyo, who acted major candidates respectably, to skyrocket.[105]

text: CD single

text: In December 1997, BBC Worldwide released a CD single from the series, based on the show's theme song, called "Teletubbies say 'Eh-oh!'" It is the only single from Teletubbies, making the characters a one-hit wonder in the United Kingdom. The song was written by Andrew McCrorie-Shand and Andrew Davenport, and produced by McCrorie-Shand and Steve James. The single reached number 1 in the UK Singles Chart in December 1997, and remained in the Top 75 for 32 weeks after its release.[106]

text: Mobile app

text: In December 2017, Teletubbies Play Time was released worldwide for mobile devices by Built Games.[citation needed]


document_title: Uterus

question_text: where is the uterus located in relation to the urinary system

root

text: Uterus

text: Structure[edit]

text: The uterus is located within the pelvic region immediately behind and almost overlying the bladder, and in front of the sigmoid colon. The human uterus is pear-shaped and about 7.6 cm (3 in.) long, 4.5 cm broad (side to side) and 3.0 cm thick.[1] A typical adult uterus weighs about 60 grams. The uterus can be divided anatomically into four regions: The fundus, corpus (body), cervix and the internal os. The cervix protrudes into the vagina. The uterus is held in position within the pelvis by condensations of endopelvic fascia, which are called ligaments. These ligaments include the pubocervical, transverse cervical ligaments or cardinal ligaments, and the uterosacral ligaments. It is covered by a sheet-like fold of peritoneum, the broad ligament.[2]

tag: p

text: From outside to inside, regions of the uterus include:

text:
Cervix uteri – "neck of uterus"

External orifice of the uterus
Cervical canal
Internal orifice of the uterus

Body (Latin: Corpus)

Uterine cavity
Fundus (uterus)

tag: ul

text: Layers[edit]

text:
Uterine wall thickness (cm)[3]

Location
Mean (mm)
Range (mm)

Anterior wall
23
17 - 25

Posterior wall
21
15 - 25

Fundus
20
15 - 22

Isthmus
10
8 - 22

tag: table

text: The uterus has three layers, which together form the uterine wall. From innermost to outermost, these layers are as follows:

text: Vertical section of mucous membrane of human uterus.

text: Support[edit]

text: The uterus is primarily supported by the pelvic diaphragm, perineal body and the urogenital diaphragm. Secondarily, it is supported by ligaments and the peritoneal ligament the broad ligament of uterus.[11]

text: Major ligaments[edit]

text: It is held in place by several peritoneal ligaments, of which the following are the most important (there are two of each):

text:
Name
From
To

Uterosacral ligament
Posterior cervix
Anterior face of sacrum

Cardinal ligaments
Side of the cervix
Ischial spines

Pubocervical ligament[11]
Side of the cervix
Pubic symphysis

text: Axes[edit]

text: Normally the uterus lies in anteversion & anteflexion. In most women, the long axis of the uterus is bent forward on the long axis of the vagina, against the urinary bladder. This position is referred to as anteversion of the uterus. Furthermore, the long axis of the body of the uterus is bent forward at the level of the internal os with the long axis of the cervix. This position is termed anteflexion of the uterus.[12] Uterus assumes anteverted position in 50% women, retroverted position in 25% women and rest have midposed uterus.[1]

text: Position[edit]

text: The uterus is in the middle of the pelvic cavity in frontal plane (due to ligamentum latum uteri). The fundus does not surpass the linea terminalis, while the vaginal part of the cervix does not extend below interspinal line. The uterus is mobile and moves posteriorly under the pressure of a full bladder, or anteriorly under the pressure of a full rectum. If both are full, it moves upwards. Increased intraabdominal pressure pushes it downwards. The mobility is conferred to it by musculo-fibrous apparatus that consists of suspensory and sustentacular part. Under normal circumstances the suspensory part keeps the uterus in anteflexion and anteversion (in 90% of women) and keeps it "floating" in the pelvis. The meaning of these terms are described below:

text:
Distinction
More common
Less common

Position tipped
"Anteverted": Tipped forward
"Retroverted": Tipped backwards

Position of fundus
"Anteflexed": Fundus is pointing forward relative to the cervix
"Retroflexed": Fundus is pointing backwards

text: Sustentacular part supports the pelvic organs and comprises the larger pelvic diaphragm in the back and the smaller urogenital diaphragm in the front.

text: The pathological changes of the position of the uterus are:

text:
retroversion/retroflexion, if it is fixed
hyperanteflexion – tipped too forward; most commonly congenital, but may be caused by tumors
anteposition, retroposition, lateroposition – the whole uterus is moved; caused by parametritis or tumors
elevation, descensus, prolapse
rotation (the whole uterus rotates around its longitudinal axis), torsion (only the body of the uterus rotates around)
inversion

text: In cases where the uterus is "tipped", also known as retroverted uterus, women may have symptoms of pain during sexual intercourse, pelvic pain during menstruation, minor incontinence, urinary tract infections, fertility difficulties,[13] and difficulty using tampons. A pelvic examination by a doctor can determine if a uterus is tipped.[14]

text: Blood supply[edit]

text: The uterus is supplied by arterial blood both from the uterine artery and the ovarian artery. Another anastomotic branch may also supply the uterus from anastomosis of these two arteries.

text: Nerve supply[edit]

text: Afferent nerves supplying uterus are T11 and T12. Sympathetic supply is from hypogastric plexus and ovarian plexus. Parasympathetic supply is from second, third and fourth sacral nerves.

text: Development[edit]

text: Bilateral Müllerian ducts form during early fetal life. In males, MIF secreted from the testes leads to their regression. In females, these ducts give rise to the Fallopian tubes and the uterus. In humans the lower segments of the two ducts fuse to form a single uterus, however, in cases of uterine malformations this development may be disturbed. The different uterine forms in various mammals are due to various degrees of fusion of the two Müllerian ducts.

text: Function[edit]

text: The reproductive function of the uterus is to accept a fertilized ovum which passes through the utero-tubal junction from the fallopian tube (uterine tube). The fertilized ovum divides to become a blastocyst, which implants into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels which develop exclusively for this purpose. The fertilized ovum becomes an embryo, attaches to a wall of the uterus, creates a placenta, and develops into a fetus (gestates) until childbirth. Due to anatomical barriers such as the pelvis, the uterus is pushed partially into the abdomen due to its expansion during pregnancy. Even during pregnancy the mass of a human uterus amounts to only about a kilogram (2.2 pounds).

text: The uterus also plays a role in sexual response, by directing blood flow to the pelvis and ovaries, and to the external genitals, including the vagina, labia, and clitoris.

text: Clinical significance[edit]

text: A hysterectomy is the surgical removal of the uterus which may be carried out for a number of reasons including the ridding of tumours both benign and malignant. A complete hysterectomy involves the removal of the body, fundus, and cervix of the uterus. A partial hysterectomy may just involve the removal of the uterine body while leaving the cervix intact. It is the most commonly performed gynecological surgical procedure.

text: Some pathological states include:

text:
Prolapse of the uterus
Carcinoma of the cervix – malignant neoplasm
Carcinoma of the uterus – malignant neoplasm
Fibroids – benign neoplasms
Adenomyosis – ectopic growth of endometrial tissue within the myometrium
Endometritis, infection at the uterine cavity.
Pyometra – infection of the uterus, most commonly seen in dogs
Uterine malformations mainly congenital malformations including Uterine Didelphys, bicornuate uterus and septate uterus. It also includes congenital absence of the uterus Rokitansky syndrome
Asherman's syndrome, also known as intrauterine adhesions occurs when the basal layer of the endometrium is damaged by instrumentation (e.g. D&C) or infection (e.g. endometrial tuberculosis) resulting in endometrial scarring followed by adhesion formation which partially or completely obliterates the uterine cavity.
Hematometra, which is accumulation of blood within the uterus.

text:
Accumulation of fluids other than blood or of unknown constitution. One study came to the conclusion that postmenopausal women with endometrial fluid collection on gynecologic ultrasonography should undergo endometrial biopsy if the endometrial lining is thicker than 3 mm or the endometrial fluid is echogenic. In cases of a lining 3 mm or less and clear endometrial fluid, endometrial biopsy was not regarded to be necessary, but endocervical curettage to rule out endocervical cancer was recommended.[15]
Myometritis – inflammation of the muscular uterine wall.[16]

text: Uterus transplantation[edit]

text: In 2012, the world's first womb transplant from a dead donor was performed on a Turkish woman who was born without a womb, but has her own ovaries. She is in good condition and the womb is functional. In the year 2000 in Saudi Arabia a similar transplant was performed, but from a live donor. Although womb transplants have been successful in animals such as mice, rats and sheep, the prevailing opinion in the field is that the risks are too great. Apart from risks of rejection of the new womb, there is concern that the drugs necessary for prevention of rejection of the donated womb might harm the fetus.[17]

text: Other animals[edit]

text: Most animals that lay eggs, such as birds and reptiles, including most ovoviviparous species, have an oviduct instead of a uterus. However, recent research into the biology of the viviparous (not merely ovoviviparous) skink Trachylepis ivensi has revealed development of a very close analogue to eutherian mammalian placental development.[18]

text: In monotremes, mammals which lay eggs, namely the platypus and the echidnas, either the term uterus or oviduct is used to describe the same organ, but the egg does not develop a placenta within the mother and thus does not receive further nourishment after formation and fertilization.

text: Marsupials have two uteri, each of which connect to a lateral vagina and which both use a third, middle "vagina" which functions as the birth canal.[19] Marsupial embryos form a choriovitelline placenta (which can be thought of as something between a monotreme egg and a "true" placenta), in which the egg's yolk sac supplies a large part of the embryo's nutrition but also attaches to the uterine wall and takes nutrients from the mother's bloodstream. However, bandicoots also have a rudimentary chorioallantoic placenta, similar to those of placental mammals.

text: The fetus usually develops fully in placental mammals and only partially in marsupials including kangaroos and opossums. In marsupials the uterus forms as a duplex organ of two uteri. In monotremes (egg-laying mammals) such as the platypus, the uterus is duplex and rather than nurturing the embryo, secretes the shell around the egg. It is essentially identical with the shell gland of birds and reptiles, with which the uterus is homologous.[20]

text: In mammals, the four main forms of the uterus are: duplex, bipartite, bicornuate and simplex.[21]

text: Two uteri usually form initially in a female and usually male fetus, and in placental mammals they may partially or completely fuse into a single uterus depending on the species. In many species with two uteri, only one is functional. Humans and other higher primates such as chimpanzees, usually have a single completely fused uterus, although in some individuals the uteri may not have completely fused.

text: Additional images[edit]

text:
Schematic frontal view of female anatomy

Uterus and uterine tubes.

Sectional plan of the gravid uterus in the third and fourth month.

Fetus in utero, between fifth and sixth months.

Female pelvis and its contents, seen from above and in front.

The arteries of the internal organs of generation of the female, seen from behind.

Median sagittal section of female pelvis.

(Description located on image page)

Uterus


document_title: Platonic Academy (Florence)

question_text: who founded the platonic academy of philosophy in florence

text: Platonic Academy (Florence)

text: The Platonic Academy (also known as the Neoplatonic Florentine Academy)[1] was a 15th-century discussion group in Florence, Italy.

text: History[edit]

text: The Neoplatonic Florentine Academy was founded after Gemistus Pletho reintroduced Plato's thoughts to Western Europe during the 1438–39 Council of Florence. It was sponsored by Cosimo de' Medici, led by Marsilio Ficino and supported by Medici until death of Lorenzo Medici. It was never a formal group but the members considered themselves a modern form of Plato's Academy. Important members were Poliziano, Cristoforo Landino, Pico della Mirandola, and Gentile de' Becchi. The academy would proceed to translate into Latin all of Plato's works, the Enneads of Plotinus, and various other Neoplatonic works.[2]

text: Pico della Mirandola became the first Christian scholar to master the Jewish mystical theology of Kabbalah. He attempted to develop a form of syncretism whereby different systems of thought could be harmonized based on shared elements of truth. Pico asserted that even though Platonism and Christianity had different views, they held some truths in common. An important aspect of Pico’s philosophical thought was his defense of the dignity and liberty of the human being, set forth in On the Dignity of Man (1486). Both Ficino and Pico resurrected the humanistic views of ancient Greece. However, the humanism of the Renaissance was more individualistic than the humanism of ancient times.

text: The biographer John Addington Symonds speculates that Michelangelo Buonarroti spent time among the members of the Platonic Academy during Buonarroti's early years in Florence, fully absorbing its doctrines and later authoring poems and other works demonstrating agreement with their doctrines.[3]

text: Platonic Academy was in fact dissolved soon after death of Lorenzo Medici in 1492. Poliziano and Mirandola died under very mysterious circumstances in 1494. In 2007, the bodies of Poliziano and Pico della Mirandola were exhumed from St. Mark's Basilica in Florence. Scientists under the supervision of Giorgio Gruppioni, a professor of anthropology from Bologna, will use current[when?] testing techniques to study the men's lives and establish the causes of their deaths. A TV documentary is being made of this research,[4] and it was recently announced that these forensic tests showed that both Poliziano and Pico likely died of arsenic poisoning, probably at the order of Lorenzo's successor, Piero de' Medici.[5]


document_title: American Expeditionary Forces

question_text: when did us troops arrive in france ww1

question_tokens: when did us troops arrive in france ww1

text: American Expeditionary Forces

text: History[edit]

text: President Woodrow Wilson initially planned to give command of the AEF to Gen. Frederick Funston, but after Funston's sudden death, Wilson appointed Major General John J. Pershing in May 1917, and Pershing remained in command for the entire war. Pershing insisted that American soldiers be well-trained before going to Europe. As a result, few troops arrived before January 1918. In addition, Pershing insisted that the American force would not be used merely to fill gaps in the French and British armies, and he resisted European efforts to have U.S. troops deployed as individual replacements in decimated Allied units. This approach was not always well received by the western Allied leaders who distrusted the potential of an army lacking experience in large-scale warfare.[1] In addition, the British Empire tried to bargain with its spare shipping to make the United States put its soldiers into British ranks.

text: By June 1917, only 14,000 American soldiers had arrived in France, and the AEF had only a minor participation at the front through late October 1917, but by May 1918 over one million American troops were stationed in France, though only half of them made it to the front lines.[2] Since the transport ships needed to bring American troops to Europe were scarce at the beginning, the U.S. Army pressed into service passenger liners, seized German ships, and borrowed Allied ships to transport American soldiers from ports in New York City, New Jersey, and Virginia. The mobilization effort taxed the American military to the limit and required new organizational strategies and command structures to transport great numbers of troops and supplies quickly and efficiently. The French harbors of Bordeaux, La Pallice, Saint Nazaire, and Brest became the entry points into the French railway system that brought the American troops and their supplies to the Western Front. American engineers in France also built 82 new ship berths, nearly 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of additional standard-gauge tracks, and over 100,000 miles (160,000 km) of telephone and telegraph lines.[1]

text: The first American troops, who were often called "Doughboys", landed in Europe in June 1917. However the AEF did not participate at the front until October 21, 1917, when the 1st Division fired the first American shell of the war toward German lines, although they participated only on a small scale. A group of regular soldiers and the first American division to arrive in France, entered the trenches near Nancy, France, in Lorraine.[1]

text: The AEF used French and British equipment. Particularly appreciated were the French canon de 75 modèle 1897, the canon de 155 C modèle 1917 Schneider, and the canon de 155mm GPF. American aviation units received the SPAD XIII and Nieuport 28 fighters, and the U.S. Army tank corps used French Renault FT light tanks. Pershing established facilities in France to train new arrivals with their new weapons.[3] By the end of 1917, four divisions were deployed in a large training area near Verdun: the 1st Division, a regular army formation; the 26th Division, a National Guard division; the 2nd Division, a combination of regular troops and U.S. Marines; and the 42nd "Rainbow" Division, a National Guard division made up of soldiers from nearly every state in the United States. The fifth division, the 41st Division, was converted into a depot division near Tours.

text: At the beginning, during the Spring of 1918, the four battle-ready U.S. divisions were deployed under French and British command to gain combat experience by defending relatively quiet sectors of their lines. After the first offensive action and American-led AEF victory on 28 May 1918 at the Battle of Cantigny,[5] by the U.S. 1st Division, and a similar local action by the 2nd Division at Belleau Wood beginning 6 June, both while assigned under French Corps command, Pershing worked towards the deployment of an independent US field Army. The rest followed at an accelerating pace during the spring and summer of 1918. By June Americans were arriving in-theater at the rate of 10,000 a day; most of which entered training by British, Canadian and Australian battle-experienced officers and senior non-commissioned ranks. The training took a minimum of six weeks due to the inexperience of the servicemen.

text: The first offensive action by AEF units serving under non-American command was 1,000 men (four companies from the 33d Division AEF), with the Australian Corps during the Battle of Hamel on 4 July 1918. (Corporal Thomas A. Pope was awarded the Medal of Honor for this battle.) This battle took place under the overall command of the Australian Corps commander, Lt. Gen. Sir John Monash. The Allied force in this battle combined artillery, armor, infantry, and air support (Combined arms), which served as a blueprint for all subsequent Allied attacks, using "tanks".[6]

text: U.S. Army and Marine Corps troops played a key role in helping stop the German thrust towards Paris, during the Second Battle of the Marne in June 1918 (at the Battle of Château-Thierry (1918) and the Battle of Belleau Wood). The first major and distinctly American offensive was the reduction of the Saint Mihiel salient during September 1918. During the Battle of Saint-Mihiel, Pershing commanded the U.S. First Army, composed of seven divisions and more than 500,000 men, in the largest offensive operation ever undertaken by United States armed forces. This successful offensive was followed by the Meuse-Argonne offensive, lasting from September 26 to November 11, 1918, during which Pershing commanded more than one million American and French combatants. In these two military operations, Allied forces recovered more than 200 sq mi (488 km2) of French territory from the German army. By the time the World War I Armistice had suspended all combat on November 11, 1918, the American Expeditionary Forces had evolved into a modern, combat-tested army.[1]

text: Late in the war, American units ultimately fought in two other theaters at the request of the European powers. Pershing sent troops of the 332d Infantry Regiment to Italy, and President Wilson agreed to send some troops, the 27th and 339th Infantry Regiments, to Russia.[7] These latter two were known as the American Expeditionary Force Siberia,[8] and the American Expeditionary Force North Russia.[9]

text: Casualties[edit]

text: The AEF sustained about 320,000 casualties: 53,402 battle deaths, 63,114 noncombat deaths and 204,000 wounded.[10]

text: The influenza pandemic during the fall of 1918 took the lives of more than 25,000 men from the AEF, while another 360,000 became gravely ill. Some other diseases were relatively well controlled through compulsory vaccination. Typhoid fever was also practically eliminated. Relatively few men suffered actual injury from poison gas, although much larger numbers mistakenly thought that they had been exposed.[7]

text: Using questionnaires filled out by doughboys as they left the Army, Gutièrrez reports that they were not cynical or disillusioned. They fought "for honor, manhood, comrades, and adventure, but especially for duty."[11]

text: African Americans[edit]

text: African Americans were drafted on the same basis as whites and made up 13 percent of the draftees. By the end of the war, over 350,000 African-Americans had served in AEF units on the Western Front.[12] However, they were assigned to segregated units commanded by white officers. One fifth of the black soldiers sent to France saw combat, compared to two-thirds of the whites. They were three percent of AEF combat forces, and under two percent of battlefield fatalities.[13] "The mass of the colored drafted men cannot be used for combatant troops", said a General Staff report in 1918, and it recommended that "these colored drafted men be organized in reserve labor battalions." They handled unskilled labor tasks as stevedores in the Atlantic ports and common laborers at the camps and in the Services of the Rear in France.[14] The French, whose front-line troops were resisting combat duties to the point of mutiny, requested and received control of several regiments of black combat troops.[15] Kennedy reports "Units of the black 92nd Division particularly suffered from poor preparation and the breakdown in command control. As the only black combat division, the 92nd Division entered the line with unique liabilities. It had been deliberately dispersed throughout several camps during its stateside training; some of its artillery units were summoned to France before they had completed their courses of instruction, and were never fully-equipped until after the Armistice; nearly all its senior white officers scorned the men under their command and repeatedly asked to be transferred. The black enlisted men were frequently diverted from their already attenuated training opportunities in France in the summer of 1918 and put to work as stevedores and common laborers."[16]

text: The 369th, 370th, 371st, and 372d Infantry Regiments (nominally the 93d Division, but never consolidated as such) served with distinction under French command with French colonial units in front-line combat. The French did not harbor the same levels of disdain based on skin color and for many Americans of an African-American descent it was a liberating and refreshing experience.[citation needed] These African-American soldiers wore American uniforms, some dating from the time of the Union Army, with French helmets and were armed with French Model 1907/15 8mm Lebel Berthier rifle, and Fusil Mle 1907/15 manufactured by Remington Arms rather than the M1903 Springfield or M1917 Enfield rifles issued to most American soldiers.[17] One of the most distinguished units was the 369th Infantry Regiment, known as the Harlem Hellfighters. The 369th was on the front lines for six months, longer than any other African-American regiment in the war. One hundred seventy-one members of the 369th were awarded the Legion of Merit.[18] One member of the 369th, Sergeant Henry Johnson, was awarded the French Croix de guerre,[19] and posthumously the Medal of Honor.[20]

text: Logistics[edit]

text: Supporting the two million soldiers across the Atlantic Ocean was a massive logistical enterprise. Yet the U.S. Army’s logistical skills had atrophied during the decades following the Civil War. In order to be successful, the American needed to create a coherent a support structure with very little institutional knowledge. After a rough start, the AEF developed support network appropriate for the huge size of the American force. It rested upon the Services of Supply in the rear areas, with ports, railroads, depots, schools, maintenance facilities, bakeries, clothing repair shops (termed salvage), replacement depots, ice plants, and a wide variety of other activities. The AEF initiated support techniques that would last well into the Cold War including forward maintenance, field cooking, graves registration (mortuary affairs), host nation support, motor transport, and morale services. The work of the logisticians enabled the success of the AEF and contributed to the emergence of the American Army as a modern fighting force.[21]


document_title: National debt of the United States

question_text: in 2009 the us federal debt held by the public was

question_tokens: in 2009 the us federal debt held by the public was

text: National debt of the United States

text: History[edit]

text: The United States government has continuously had a fluctuating public debt since its formation in 1789, except for about a year during 1835–1836. To allow comparisons over the years, public debt is often expressed as a ratio to gross domestic product (GDP).

text: The United States public debt as a percentage of GDP reached its highest level during Harry Truman's first presidential term, during and after World War II. Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1974 under Richard Nixon. Debt as a share of GDP has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Public debt rose during the 1980s, as Ronald Reagan cut tax rates and increased military spending. It fell during the 1990s, due to decreased military spending, increased taxes and the 1990s boom. Public debt rose sharply in the wake of the 2007–2008 financial crisis and the resulting significant tax revenue declines and spending increases.[10]

text: Valuation and measurement[edit]

text: Public and government accounts[edit]

text: On January 26, 2016, debt held by the public was $13.62 trillion or about 75% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[5][6][7][8] Intragovernmental holdings stood at $5.34 trillion, giving a combined total gross national debt of $18.96 trillion or about 104% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[7]

text: The national debt can also be classified into marketable or non-marketable securities. Most of the marketable securities are Treasury notes, bills, and bonds held by investors and governments globally. The non-marketable securities are mainly the "government account series" owed to certain government trust funds such as the Social Security Trust Fund, which represented $2.74 trillion in 2011.[11]

text: The non-marketable securities represent amounts owed to program beneficiaries. For example, in the case of the Social Security Trust Fund, the payroll taxes dedicated to Social Security were credited to the Trust Fund upon receipt, but spent for other purposes. If the government continues to run deficits in other parts of the budget, the government will have to issue debt held by the public to fund the Social Security Trust Fund, in effect exchanging one type of debt for the other.[12] Other large intragovernmental holders include the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Savings and Loan Corporation's Resolution Fund and the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare).[citation needed]

text: Accounting treatment[edit]

text: Only debt held by the public is reported as a liability on the consolidated financial statements of the United States government. Debt held by government accounts is an asset to those accounts but a liability to the Treasury; they offset each other in the consolidated financial statements.[13]

text: Government receipts and expenditures are normally presented on a cash rather than an accrual basis, although the accrual basis may provide more information on the longer-term implications of the government's annual operations.[14] The United States public debt is often expressed as a ratio of public debt to gross domestic product (GDP). The ratio of debt to GDP may decrease as a result of a government surplus as well as due to growth of GDP and inflation.[citation needed]

text: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac obligations excluded[edit]

text: Under normal accounting rules, fully owned companies would be consolidated into the books of their owners, but the large size of Fannie and Freddie has made the U.S. government reluctant to incorporate Freddie and Fannie into its own books. When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae required bail-outs, White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, on September 12, 2008, initially indicated their budget plans would not incorporate the GSE debt into the budget because of the temporary nature of the conservator intervention.[15] As the intervention has dragged out, pundits have started to further question this accounting treatment, noting that changes in August 2012 "makes them even more permanent wards of the state and turns the government's preferred stock into a permanent, perpetual kind of security".[16]

text: The government controls the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which would normally criticize inconsistent accounting practices, but it does not oversee its own government's accounting practices or the standards set by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. The on- or off-balance sheet obligations of those two independent GSEs was just over $5 trillion at the time the conservatorship was put in place, consisting mainly of mortgage payment guarantees and agency bonds.[17] The confusing independent but government-controlled status of the GSEs has resulted in investors of the legacy common shares and preferred shares launching various activist campaigns in 2014.[18]

text: Guaranteed obligations excluded[edit]

text: U.S. federal government guarantees are not included in the public debt total, until such time as there is a call on the guarantees. For example, the U.S. federal government in late-2008 guaranteed large amounts of obligations of mutual funds, banks, and corporations under several programs designed to deal with the problems arising from the late-2000s financial crisis. The guarantee program lapsed at the end of 2012 when Congress declined to extend the scheme. The funding of direct investments made in response to the crisis, such as those made under the Troubled Assets Relief Program, are included in the debt.

text: Unfunded obligations excluded[edit]

text: The U.S. government is obligated under current law to make mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects that payouts for these programs will significantly exceed tax revenues over the next 75 years. The Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) payouts already exceed program tax revenues, and social security payouts exceeded payroll taxes in fiscal 2010. These deficits require funding from other tax sources or borrowing.[19] The present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $45.8 trillion. This is the amount that would have had to be set aside in 2009 in order to pay for the unfunded obligations which, under current law, will have to be raised by the government in the future. Approximately $7.7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $38.2 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, health care programs will require nearly five times more funding than Social Security. Adding this to the national debt and other federal obligations would bring total obligations to nearly $62 trillion.[20] However, these unfunded obligations are not counted in the national debt, as shown in monthly Treasury reports of the national debt.[21]

text: Measuring debt burden[edit]

text: GDP is a measure of the total size and output of the economy. One measure of the debt burden is its size relative to GDP, called the "debt-to-GDP ratio." Mathematically, this is the debt divided by the GDP amount. The Congressional Budget Office includes historical budget and debt tables along with its annual "Budget and Economic Outlook." Debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP rose from 34.7% GDP in 2000 to 40.5% in 2008 and 67.7% in 2011.[22]

text: Mathematically, the ratio can decrease even while debt grows if the rate of increase in GDP (which also takes account of inflation) is higher than the rate of increase of debt. Conversely, the debt to GDP ratio can increase even while debt is being reduced, if the decline in GDP is sufficient.

text: According to the CIA World Factbook, during 2015, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio of 73.6% was the 39th highest in the world. This was measured using "debt held by the public."[23] However, $1 trillion in additional borrowing since the end of FY 2015 has raised the ratio to 76.2% as of April 2016 [See Appendix#National debt for selected years]. Also, this number excludes state and local debt. According to the OECD, general government gross debt (federal, state, and local) in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2015 was $22.5 trillion (125% of GDP); subtracting out $5.25 trillion for intergovernmental federal debt to count only federal "debt held by the public" gives 96% of GDP.[24]

text: The ratio is higher if the total national debt is used, by adding the "intragovernmental debt" to the "debt held by the public." For example, on April 29, 2016, debt held by the public was approximately $13.84 trillion or about 76% of GDP. Intra-governmental holdings stood at $5.35 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $19.19 trillion. U.S. GDP for the previous 12 months was approximately $18.15 trillion, for a total debt to GDP ratio of approximately 106%.[25]

text: Calculating the annual change in debt[edit]

text: Conceptually, an annual deficit (or surplus) should represent the change in the national debt, with a deficit adding to the national debt and a surplus reducing it. However, there is complexity in the budgetary computations that can make the deficit figure commonly reported in the media (the "total deficit") considerably different from the annual increase in the debt. The major categories of differences are the treatment of the Social Security program, Treasury borrowing, and supplemental appropriations outside the budget process.[26]

text: Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service, are considered "off-budget", while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget". The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998–FY2001.[27]

text: For example, in January 2009 the CBO reported that for fiscal year 2008 (FY2008) the "on-budget deficit" was $638 billion, offset by an "off-budget surplus" (mainly due to Social Security revenue in excess of payouts) of $183 billion, for a "total deficit" of $455 billion. This latter figure is the one commonly reported in the media. However, an additional $313 billion was required for "the Treasury actions aimed at stabilizing the financial markets," an unusually high amount due to the Subprime mortgage crisis. This meant that the "debt held by the public" increased by $768 billion ($455B + $313B = $768B). The "off-budget surplus" was borrowed and spent (as is typically the case), increasing the "intra-governmental debt" by $183 billion. So the total increase in the "National debt" in FY2008 was $768B +$183B = $951 billion.[26] The Treasury Department reported an increase in the National Debt of $1,017B for FY2008.[28] The $66 billion difference is likely due to "supplemental appropriations" for the War on Terror, some of which were outside the budget process entirely until President Obama began including most of them in his FY2010 budget.[29]

text: In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the "off-budget" surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media. Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration.[29] Certain stimulus measures and earmarks were also outside the budget process. The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) monthly.[30]

text: Reduction[edit]

text: Negative real interest rates[edit]

text: Since 2010, the U.S. Treasury has been obtaining negative real interest rates on government debt, meaning the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate paid on the debt.[31] Such low rates, outpaced by the inflation rate, occur when the market believes that there are no alternatives with sufficiently low risk, or when popular institutional investments such as insurance companies, pensions, or bond, money market, and balanced mutual funds are required or choose to invest sufficiently large sums in Treasury securities to hedge against risk.[32][33]

text: Economist Lawrence Summers has stated that at such low interest rates, government borrowing actually saves taxpayer money and improves creditworthiness.[34]

text: In the late 1940s through the early 1970s, the US and UK both reduced their debt burden by about 30% to 40% of GDP per decade by taking advantage of negative real interest rates, but there is no guarantee that government debt rates will continue to stay this low.[32][35] Between 1946 and 1974, the US debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 121% to 32% even though there were surpluses in only eight of those years which were much smaller than the deficits.[36]

text: Raising reserve requirements and full reserve banking[edit]

text: The two economists, Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof, working for the International Monetary Fund, published a working paper called The Chicago Plan Revisited suggesting that the debt could be eliminated by raising bank reserve requirements and converting from fractional reserve banking to full reserve banking.[37][38] Economists at the Paris School of Economics have commented on the plan, stating that it is already the status quo for coinage currency,[39] and a Norges Bank economist has examined the proposal in the context of considering the finance industry as part of the real economy.[40] A Centre for Economic Policy Research paper agrees with the conclusion that, "no real liability is created by new fiat money creation, and therefore public debt does not rise as a result".[41]

text: Debt ceiling[edit]

text: The debt ceiling is a legislative mechanism to limit the amount of national debt that can be issued by the Treasury. In effect, it will restrain the Treasury from paying for expenditures after the limit has been reached, even if the expenditures have already been approved (in the budget) and have been appropriated. If this situation were to occur, it is unclear whether Treasury would be able to prioritize payments on debt to avoid a default on its debt obligations, but it would have to default on some of its non-debt obligations.

text: Debt holdings[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Because a large variety of people own the notes, bills, and bonds in the "public" portion of the debt, Treasury also publishes information that groups the types of holders by general categories to portray who owns United States debt. In this data set, some of the public portion is moved and combined with the total government portion, because this amount is owned by the Federal Reserve as part of United States monetary policy. (See Federal Reserve System.)

text: As is apparent from the chart, a little less than half of the total national debt is owed to the "Federal Reserve and intragovernmental holdings". The foreign and international holders of the debt are also put together from the notes, bills, and bonds sections. To the right is a chart for the data as of June 2008:

text: Foreign holdings[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: As of September 2014, foreigners owned $6.06 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public of $12.8 trillion and 34% of the total debt of $17.8 trillion.[42] The largest holders were China, Japan, Belgium, the Caribbean banking centers, and oil exporters.[44]

text: The share held by foreign governments has grown over time, rising from 13% of the public debt in 1988[45] to 25% in 2007.[46]

text: As of September 2014 the largest single holder of U.S. government debt was China, with 21% of all foreign-held U.S. Treasury securities (10% of total U.S. public debt).[47] China's holdings of government debt, as a percentage of all foreign-held government debt are up significantly since 2000 (when China held just 6 percent of all foreign-held U.S. Treasury securities).[48]

text: This exposure to potential financial or political risk should foreign banks stop buying Treasury securities or start selling them heavily was addressed in a June 2008 report issued by the Bank of International Settlements, which stated, "Foreign investors in U.S. dollar assets have seen big losses measured in dollars, and still bigger ones measured in their own currency. While unlikely, indeed highly improbable for public sector investors, a sudden rush for the exits cannot be ruled out completely."[49]

text: On May 20, 2007, Kuwait discontinued pegging its currency exclusively to the dollar, preferring to use the dollar in a basket of currencies.[citation needed] Syria made a similar announcement on June 4, 2007.[50] In September 2009 China, India and Russia said they were interested in buying International Monetary Fund gold to diversify their dollar-denominated securities.[51] However, in July 2010 China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange "ruled out the option of dumping its vast holdings of US Treasury securities" and said gold "cannot become a main channel for investing our foreign exchange reserves" because the market for gold is too small and prices are too volatile.[citation needed]

text: According to Paul Krugman, "It's true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar's worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents' worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that's already deep in hock to the Chinese, you've been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction."[52]

text: Forecasting[edit]

text: CBO short-term outlook[edit]

text: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported in its February 2014 Budget and Economic Outlook (which covers the 2014–2024 period) that deficits were projected to return to approximately the historical average relative to the size of the economy (GDP) by 2014. The CBO estimated that under current law, the deficit would total $514 billion in fiscal year 2014 or 3.0% GDP. Deficits would then slowly begin rising again through 2024, due primarily to the pressures of an aging population and rising healthcare costs per person. The debt to GDP ratio would remain stable for much of the decade then begin rising again toward the end of the 10-year forecast window, from 74% in 2014 to 79% in 2024.[53]

text: CBO long-term outlook[edit]

text: The CBO reports its Long-Term Budget Outlook annually, providing at least two scenarios for spending, revenue, deficits, and debt. The 2014 Outlook mainly covers the 25-year period through 2039. The "extended baseline scenario" assumes that the laws currently on the books will be implemented, for the most part. The CBO reported in July 2014 that under this scenario:

text: If current laws remained generally unchanged in the future, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next few years. After that, however, growing budget deficits would push debt back to and above its current high level. Twenty-five years from now, in 2039, federal debt held by the public would exceed 100 percent of GDP. Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely. By 2039, the deficit would equal 6.5 percent of GDP, larger than in any year between 1947 and 2008, and federal debt held by the public would reach 106 percent of GDP, more than in any year except 1946—even without factoring in the economic effects of growing debt.[54]

text: The "extended alternative fiscal scenario" assumes the continuation of present trends, which result in a more unfavorable debt position and adverse economic consequences relative to the baseline scenario. The CBO reported in July 2014 that under this scenario:

text: [C]ertain policies that are now in place but are scheduled to change under current law are assumed to continue, and some provisions of current law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period are assumed to be modified. Under that scenario, deficits excluding interest payments would be about $2 trillion larger over the first decade than those under the baseline; subsequently, such deficits would be larger than those under the extended baseline by rapidly increasing amounts, doubling as a percentage of GDP in less than 10 years. CBO projects that real GNP in 2039 would be about 5 percent lower under the extended alternative fiscal scenario than under the extended baseline with economic feedback, and that interest rates would be about three-quarters of a percentage point higher. Reflecting the budgetary effects of those economic developments, federal debt would rise to 183 percent of GDP in 2039.[54]

text: Over the long-term, the CBO projects that interest expense and mandatory spending categories (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) will continue to grow relative to GDP, while discretionary categories (e.g., Defense and other Cabinet Departments) continue to fall relative to GDP. Debt is projected to continue rising relative to GDP under the above two scenarios, although the CBO did also offer other scenarios that involved austerity measures that would bring the debt to GDP ratio down.[54]

text: The CBO estimated under the baseline scenario that the U.S. debt held by the public would increase approximately $8.5 trillion between the end of 2014 and 2024. Under a $2 trillion deficit reduction scenario during that first decade, federal debt held by the public in 2039 would stand at 75 percent of GDP, only slightly above the value of 72 percent at the end of 2013. Under a $4 trillion deficit reduction scenario for that decade, federal debt held by the public would fall to 42 percent of GDP in 2039. By comparison, such debt comprised 35 percent of GDP in 2007 and has averaged 39 percent of GDP during the past 40 years.[54]

text: The CBO reported in September 2011: "The nation cannot continue to sustain the spending programs and policies of the past with the tax revenues it has been accustomed to paying. Citizens will either have to pay more for their government, accept less in government services and benefits, or both."[55]

text: Risks and debates[edit]

text: CBO risk factors[edit]

text: The CBO reported several types of risk factors related to rising debt levels in a July 2010 publication:

text:
A growing portion of savings would go towards purchases of government debt, rather than investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers, leading to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur;
If higher marginal tax rates were used to pay rising interest costs, savings would be reduced and work would be discouraged;
Rising interest costs would force reductions in government programs;
Restrictions to the ability of policymakers to use fiscal policy to respond to economic challenges; and
An increased risk of a sudden fiscal crisis, in which investors demand higher interest rates.[56]

text: Concerns over Chinese holdings of U.S. debt[edit]

text: Many American and other economic analysts have expressed concerns on account of the People's Republic of China's "extensive" holdings of United States government debt,[57][58] as part of their reserves.

text: The National Defense Authorization Act of the fiscal year 2012 included a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct a "national security risk assessment of U.S. federal debt held by China." The Department issued its report in July 2012, stating that "attempting to use U.S. Treasury securities as a coercive tool would have limited effect and likely would do more harm to China than to the United States. As the threat is not credible and the effect would be limited even if carried out, it does not offer China deterrence options, whether in the diplomatic, military, or economic realms, and this would remain true both in peacetime and in scenarios of crisis or war."[59]

text: The 112th United States Congress introduced legislation whose aim was the assessment of the implications of China's ownership of U.S. debt.[59] The 2013 Report claimed that "[a] potentially serious short-term problem would emerge if China decided to suddenly reduce their liquid U.S. financial assets significantly" [emphasis in the original text], noting, also, that Federal Reserve System Chairman Ben Bernanke had, in 2007, stated that "because foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities represent only a small part of total U.S. credit market debt outstanding, U.S. credit markets should be able to absorb without great difficulty any shift of foreign allocations."[59]

text: A significant number of economists and analysts dismiss any and all concerns over foreign holdings of United States government debt denominated in U.S. dollars, including China's holdings.[60][61][62][63]

text: Sustainability[edit]

text: According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the United States is on a "fiscally unsustainable" path because of projected future increases in Medicare and Social Security spending.[19]

text: Risks to economic growth[edit]

text: Debt levels may affect economic growth rates. In 2010, economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart reported that among the 20 developed countries studied, average annual GDP growth was 3–4% when debt was relatively moderate or low (i.e. under 60% of GDP), but it dips to just 1.6% when debt was high (i.e., above 90% of GDP).[64] In April 2013, the conclusions of Rogoff and Reinhart's study came into question when a coding error in their original paper was discovered by Herndon, Ash and Pollin of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.[65][66] Herndon, Ash and Pollin found that after correcting for errors and unorthodox methods used, there was no evidence that debt above a specific threshold reduces growth.[67] Reinhart and Rogoff maintain that after correcting for errors, a negative relationship between high debt and growth remains.[68] However, other economists, including Paul Krugman, have argued that it is low growth which causes national debt to increase, rather than the other way around.[69][70][71]

text: Commenting on fiscal sustainability, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated in April 2010 that "Neither experience nor economic theory clearly indicates the threshold at which government debt begins to endanger prosperity and economic stability. But given the significant costs and risks associated with a rapidly rising federal debt, our nation should soon put in place a credible plan for reducing deficits to sustainable levels over time."[72]

text: Interest and debt service costs[edit]

text: Despite rising debt levels, interest costs have remained at approximately 2008 levels (around $450 billion in total) due to lower than long-term interest rates paid on government debt in recent years.[73] However, interest rates may return to higher historical levels.[74]

text: The cost of servicing the U.S. national debt can be measured in various ways. The CBO analyzes net interest as a percentage of GDP, with a higher percentage indicating a higher interest payment burden. During 2015, this was 1.3% GDP, close to the record low 1.2% of the 1966–1968 era. The average from 1966 to 2015 was 2.0% of GDP.[75] However, the CBO estimated in 2016 that the interest amounts and % GDP will increase significantly over the following decade as both interest rates and debt levels rise: "Interest payments on that debt represent a large and rapidly growing expense of the federal government. CBO's baseline shows net interest payments more than tripling under current law, climbing from $231 billion in 2014, or 1.3 percent of GDP, to $799 billion in 2024, or 3.0 percent of GDP—the highest ratio since 1996."[76]

text: Definition of public debt[edit]

text: Economists also debate the definition of public debt. Krugman argued in May 2010 that the debt held by the public is the right measure to use, while Reinhart has testified to the President's Fiscal Reform Commission that gross debt is the appropriate measure.[69] The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) cited research by several economists supporting the use of the lower debt held by the public figure as a more accurate measure of the debt burden, disagreeing with these Commission members.[77]

text: There is debate regarding the economic nature of the intragovernmental debt, which was approximately $4.6 trillion in February 2011.[78] For example, the CBPP argues: that "large increases in [debt held by the public] can also push up interest rates and increase the amount of future interest payments the federal government must make to lenders outside of the United States, which reduces Americans' income. By contrast, intragovernmental debt (the other component of the gross debt) has no such effects because it is simply money the federal government owes (and pays interest on) to itself."[77]

text: However, if the U.S. government continues to run "on budget" deficits as projected by the CBO and OMB for the foreseeable future, it will have to issue marketable Treasury bills and bonds (i.e., debt held by the public) to pay for the projected shortfall in the Social Security program. This will result in "debt held by the public" replacing "intragovernmental debt".[79][80]

text: Intergenerational equity[edit]

text: One debate about the national debt relates to intergenerational equity. For example, if one generation is receiving the benefit of government programs or employment enabled by deficit spending and debt accumulation, to what extent does the resulting higher debt impose risks and costs on future generations? There are several factors to consider:

text:
For every dollar of debt held by the public, there is a government obligation (generally marketable Treasury securities) counted as an asset by investors. Future generations benefit to the extent these assets are passed on to them.[81]
As of 2010, approximately 72% of the financial assets were held by the wealthiest 5% of the population.[82] This presents a wealth and income distribution question, as only a fraction of the people in future generations will receive principal or interest from investments related to the debt incurred today.
To the extent the U.S. debt is owed to foreign investors (approximately half the "debt held by the public" during 2012), principal and interest are not directly received by U.S. heirs.[81]
Higher debt levels imply higher interest payments, which create costs for future taxpayers (e.g., higher taxes, lower government benefits, higher inflation, or increased risk of fiscal crisis).[56]
To the extent the borrowed funds are invested today to improve the long-term productivity of the economy and its workers, such as via useful infrastructure projects or education, future generations may benefit.[83]
For every dollar of intragovernmental debt, there is an obligation to specific program recipients, generally non-marketable securities such as those held in the Social Security Trust Fund. Adjustments that reduce future deficits in these programs may also apply costs to future generations, via higher taxes or lower program spending.[citation needed]

text: Krugman wrote in March 2013 that by neglecting public investment and failing to create jobs, we are doing far more harm to future generations than merely passing along debt: "Fiscal policy is, indeed, a moral issue, and we should be ashamed of what we're doing to the next generation's economic prospects. But our sin involves investing too little, not borrowing too much." Young workers face high unemployment and studies have shown their income may lag throughout their careers as a result. Teacher jobs have been cut, which could affect the quality of education and competitiveness of younger Americans.[84]

text: Credit default[edit]

text: The US has never fully defaulted.[85][86]

text: In April 1979, however, the United States may have technically defaulted on $122 million in Treasury bills, which was less than 1% of U.S. debt. The Treasury Department characterized it as a delay rather than as a default, but it did have consequences for short-term interest rates, which jumped 0.6%.[87] Others view it as a temporary, partial default.[88][89][90]

text: Appendix[edit]

text: National debt for selected years[edit]

text:
Fiscal year
Total debt
[91][92][93]
Total debt
as % of GDP
Public debt
Public debt
as % of GDP
GDP
($ billions)[94]

1910
 2.65/-
8.1%
2.65
8.1%
est. 32.8

1920
25.95/-
29.2%
25.95
29.2%
est. 88.6

1927
[95] 18.51/-
19.2%
18.51
19.2%
est. 96.5

1930
16.19/-
16.6%
16.19
16.6%
est. 97.4

1940
42.97/50.70
43.8–51.6%
42.77
43.6%
-/98.2

1950
257.3/256.9
92.0%
219.0
78.4%
279.0

1960
286.3/290.5
53.6–54.2%
236.8
44.3%
535.1

1970
370.9/380.9
35.4–36.4%
283.2
27.0%
1,049

1980
907.7/909.0
32.4–32.6%
711.9
25.5%
2,796

1990
3,233/3,206
54.2–54.6%
2,400
40.8%
5,915

2000
a15,659
a55.8%
a3,450
33.9%
10,150

2001
a25,792
a54.8%
a3,350
31.6%
10,550

2002
a36,213
a57.1%
a3,550
32.7%
10,900

2003
a6,783
a 59.9%
a3,900
34.6%
11,350

2004
a7,379
a 61.0%
a4,300
35.6%
12,100

2005
a47,918
a 61.4%
a4,600
35.7%
12,900

2006
a58,493
a 62.1%
a4,850
35.4%
13,700

2007
a68,993
a 62.8%
a5,050
35.3%
14,300

2008
a710,011
a 67.9%
a5,800
39.4%
14,750

2009
a811,898
a 82.5%
a7,550
52.4%
14,400

2010
a913,551
a 91.6%
a9,000
61.0%
14,800

2011
a1014,781
a 96.1%
a10,150
65.8%
15,400

2012
a1116,059
a100.2%
a11,250
70.3%
16,050

2013
a1216,732
a101.3%
a12,000
72.6%
16,500

2014
a1317,810
a103.4%
a12,800
74.2%
17,200

2015
a1418,138
a101.3/101.8%
a13,100
73.3%
17,900

2016 (Oct. '15 –
Jul. '16 only)
~19,428
~106.1%
~13,998
~76.5%

text: On June 25, 2014, the BEA announced: "[On July 30, 2014, i]n addition to the regular revision of estimates for the most recent 3 years and for the first quarter of 2014, GDP and select components will be revised back to the first quarter of 1999.

text: Fiscal years 1940–2009 GDP figures were derived from February 2011 Office of Management and Budget figures which contained revisions of prior year figures due to significant changes from prior GDP measurements. Fiscal years 1950–2010 GDP measurements were derived from December 2010 Bureau of Economic Analysis figures which also tend to be subject to revision, especially more recent years. Afterwards the OMB figures were revised back to 2004 and the BEA figures (in a revision dated July 31, 2013) were revised back to 1947.

text: Regarding estimates recorded in the GDP column (the last column) marked with a "~" symbol, absolute differences from advance (one month after) BEA reports of GDP percent change to current findings (as of November 2013) found in revisions are stated to be 1.3% ± 2.0% or a 95% probability of being within the range of 0.0–3.3%, assuming the differences to occur according to standard deviations from the average absolute difference of 1.3%. E.g. with an advance report of a $400 billion increase of a $10 trillion GDP, for example, one could be 95% confident that the range in which the exact GDP dollar amount lies would be 0.0 to 3.3% different than 4.0% (400 ÷ 10,000) or within the range of $0 to $330 billion different than the hypothetical $400 billion (a range of $70–730 billion). Two months after, with a revised value, the range of potential difference from the stated estimate shrinks, and three months after with another revised value the range shrinks again.

text: Fiscal years 1940–1970 begin July 1 of the previous year (for example, Fiscal Year 1940 begins July 1, 1939 and ends June 30, 1940); fiscal years 1980–2010 begin October 1 of the previous year. Intragovernmental debts before the Social Security Act are presumed to equal zero.

text: 1909–1930 calendar year GDP estimates are from MeasuringWorth.com[96] Fiscal Year estimates are derived from simple linear interpolation.

text: (a1) Audited figure was "about $5,659 billion."[97]

text: (a2) Audited figure was "about $5,792 billion."[98]

text: (a3) Audited figure was "about $6,213 billion."[98]

text: (a) Audited figure was said to be "about" the stated figure.[99]

text: (a4) Audited figure was "about $7,918 billion."[100]

text: (a5) Audited figure was "about $8,493 billion."[100]

text: (a6) Audited figure was "about $8,993 billion."[101]

text: (a7) Audited figure was "about $10,011 billion."[101]

text: (a8) Audited figure was "about $11,898 billion."[102]

text: (a9) Audited figure was "about $13,551 billion."[103]

text: (a10) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Public debt figure as $14,781 billion.[104]

text: (a11) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Public debt figure as $16,059 billion.[104]

text: (a12) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $16,732 billion.[105]

text: (a13) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $17,810 billion.[6]

text: (a14) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $18,138 billion.[106]

text: Interest paid[edit]

text:
Fiscal
Year
Historical
debt outstanding,
$billions, US[107]
Interest paid
$billions, US[108]
Interest rate

2017

458.5

2016

432.6

2015
18,150
402.4
2.22%

2014
17,824
430.8
2.42%

2013
16,738
415.7
2.48%

2012
16,066
359.8
2.24%

2011
14,790
454.4
3.07%

2010
13,562
414.0
3.05%

2009
11,910
383.1
3.22%

2008
10,025
451.2
4.50%

2007
9,008
430.0
4.77%

2006
8,507
405.9
4.77%

2005
7,933
352.4
4.44%

2004
7,379
321.6
4.36%

2003
6,783
318.1
4.69%

2002
6,228
332.5
5.34%

2001
5,807
359.5
6.19%

2000
5,674
362.0
6.38%

1999
5,656
353.5
6.25%

1998
5,526
363.8
6.58%

1997
5,413
355.8
6.57%

1996
5,225
344.0
6.58%

1995
4,974
332.4
6.68%

1994
4,693
296.3
6.31%

1993
4,411
292.5
6.63%

1992
4,065
292.4
7.19%

1991
3,665
286.0
7.80%

text: Foreign holders of US Treasury securities[edit]

text: The following is a list of the top foreign holders (over $150 billion) of US Treasury securities as listed by the US Treasury (revised by November 2017 survey):[109]

text:
Leading foreign holders of US Treasury securities as of November 2017

Country or region
Billions of dollars (est.)
Ratio of owned US debt
to 2016 GDP (est.)[110][111]
Percent change since
October 2016

 China
1,176.6
6%
+12%

 Japan
1,084.1
22%
− 2%

 Ireland
328.7
108%
+19%

 Cayman Islands
269.4
n/a
+ 3%

 Brazil
265.3
15%
+ 3%

  Switzerland
250.9
38%
+ 9%

 United Kingdom
237.9
9%
+10%

 Luxembourg
218.3
364%
− 2%

 Hong Kong
194.9
61%
+ 5%

 Taiwan
179.9
34%
– 2%

Others
2,137.1
n/a
+ 9%

Grand total
6,343.1
n/a
+ 7%

text: Statistics[edit]

text:
U.S. official gold reserves as of 31 July 2014[update] total 261.5 million troy ounces with a book value of approximately $11.04 billion.[112]
Foreign exchange reserves $140 billion as of September 2014[update].[113]

United States balance of trade (1980–2014), with negative numbers denoting a trade deficit

The national debt equates to $59,143 per person U.S. population, or $159,759 per member of the U.S. working taxpayers, as of March 2016.[114]
In 2008, $242 billion was spent on interest payments servicing the debt, out of a total tax revenue of $2.5 trillion, or 9.6%. Including non-cash interest accrued primarily for Social Security, interest was $454 billion or 18% of tax revenue.[101]
Total U.S. household debt, including mortgage loan and consumer debt, was $11.4 trillion in 2005. By comparison, total U.S. household assets, including real estate, equipment, and financial instruments such as mutual funds, was $62.5 trillion in 2005.[115]
Total U.S Consumer Credit Card revolving credit was $931.0 billion in April 2009.[116]
The U.S. balance of trade deficit in goods and services was $725.8 billion in 2005.[117]
According to the U.S. Department of Treasury Preliminary 2014 Annual Report on U.S. Holdings of Foreign Securities, the United States valued its foreign treasury securities portfolio at $2.7 trillion. The largest debtors are Canada, the United Kingdom, Cayman Islands, and Australia, whom account for $1.2 trillion of sovereign debt owed to residents of the U.S.[118]
The entire public debt in 1998 was attributable to the cost of research, development, and deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-related programs during the Cold War.[119][120][121]

text: A 1998 Brookings Institution study published by the Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Committee (formed in 1993 by the W. Alton Jones Foundation), calculated that total expenditures for U.S. nuclear weapons from 1940 to 1998 was $5.5 trillion in 1996 Dollars.[119] The total public debt at the end of fiscal year 1998 was $5,478,189,000,000 in 1998 Dollars[122] or $5.3 trillion in 1996 Dollars.

text: International debt comparisons[edit]

text: This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2015)

text:
Gross debt as percentage of GDP

Entity
2007
2010
2011

United States
62%
92%
102%

European Union
59%
80%
83%

Austria
62%
78%
72%

France
64%
82%
86%

Germany
65%
82%
81%

Sweden
40%
39%
38%

Finland
35%
48%
49%

Greece
104%
123%
165%

Romania
13%
31%
33%

Bulgaria
17%
16%
16%

Czech Republic
28%
38%
41%

Italy
112%
119%
120%

Netherlands
52%
77%
65%

Poland
51%
55%
56%

Spain
42%
68%
68%

United Kingdom
47%
80%
86%

Japan
167%
197%
204%

Russia
9%
12%
10%

Asia 1
37%
40%
41%

South America and Mexico 2
41%
37%
35%

text: Sources: Eurostat,[123] International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook (emerging market economies); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Economic Outlook (advanced economies)[124]

text: 1China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand

text: 2Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico

text: Recent additions to the public debt of the United States[edit]

text:
Recent additions to U.S. public debt[7][91][92][94]

Fiscal year (begins
Oct. 1 of year prior
to stated year)
GDP
$Billions
New debt
for
fiscal year
$Billions
New debt
as
% of GDP
Total debt
$Billions
Total debt
as % of GDP
(Debt to GDP
ratio)

1994
$7,200
$281–292
3.9–4.1%
~$4,650
64.6–65.2%

1995
7,600
277–281
3.7%
~4,950
64.8–65.6%

1996
8,000
251–260
3.1–3.3%
~5,200
65.0–65.4%

1997
8,500
188
2.2%
~5,400
63.2–63.8%

1998
8,950
109–113
1.2–1.3%
~5,500
61.2–61.8%

1999
9,500
127–130
1.3–1.4%
5,656
59.3%

2000
10,150
18
0.2%
5,674
55.8%

2001
$10,550
$  133
1.3%
$5,792
54.8%

2002
10,900
421
3.9%
6,213
57.1%

2003
11,350
570
5.0%
6,783
59.9%

2004
12,100
596
4.9%
7,379
61.0%

2005
12,900
539
4.2%
7,918
61.4%

2006
13,700
575
4.2%
8,493
62.1%

2007
14,300
500
3.5%
8,993
62.8%

2008
14,750
1,018
6.9%
10,011
67.9%

2009
$14,400
$1,887
13.1%
$11,898
82.5%

2010
14,800
1,653
11.2%
13,551
91.6%

2011[125]
15,400
1,230
8.0%
14,781
96.1%

2012
16,050
1,278
8.0%
16,059
100.2%

2013
16,500
673
4.1%
16,732
101.3%

2014
17,200
1,078
6.3%
17,810
103.4%

2015
17,900
328
1.8%
18,138
101.3%

2016 (Oct. '15 –
Jul. '16 only)

~1,290
~7.0%
~19,428
~106.1%

text: On July 29, 2016 the BEA released a revision to 2013–2016 GDP figures. The figures for this table were corrected the next week with changes to figures in those fiscal years.

text: On July 30, 2015 the BEA released a revision to 2012–2015 GDP figures. The figures for this table were corrected on that day with changes to FY 2013 and 2014, but not 2015 as FY 2015 is updated within a week with the release of debt totals for July 31, 2015.

text: On June 25, 2014 the BEA announced a 15-year revision of GDP figures would take place on July 31, 2014. The figures for this table were corrected after that date with changes to FY 2000, 2003, 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2014. The more precise FY 1999–2014 debt figures are derived from Treasury audit results. The variations in the 1990s and FY 2015 figures are due to double-sourced or relatively preliminary GDP figures respectively. A comprehensive revision GDP revision dated July 31, 2013 was described on the Bureau of Economic Analysis website. In November 2013 the total debt and yearly debt as a percentage of GDP columns of this table were changed to reflect those revised GDP figures.

text: Historical debt ceiling levels[edit]

text:
[show]Table of historical debt ceiling levels[126]

Date
Debt Ceiling
(billions of dollars)
Change in Debt Ceiling
(billions of dollars)
Statute

June 25, 1940
49[127]

February 19, 1941
65
+16

March 28, 1942
125
+60

April 11, 1943
210
+85

June 9, 1944
260
+50

April 3, 1945
300
+40

June 26, 1946
275
−25

August 28, 1954
281
+6

July 9, 1956
275
−6

February 26, 1958
280
+5

September 2, 1958
288
+8

June 30, 1959
295
+7

June 30, 1960
293
−2

June 30, 1961
298[128]
+5

July 1, 1962
308
+10

March 31, 1963
305
−3

June 25, 1963
300
−5

June 30, 1963
307
+7

August 31, 1963
309
+2

November 26, 1963
315
+6

June 29, 1964
324
+9

June 24, 1965
328
+4

June 24, 1966
330
+2

March 2, 1967
336
+6

June 30, 1967
358
+22

June 1, 1968
365
+7

April 7, 1969
377
+12

June 30, 1970
395
+18

March 17, 1971
430
+35

March 15, 1972
450[129]
+20

October 27, 1972
465
+15

June 30, 1974
495
+30

February 19, 1975
577
+82

November 14, 1975
595
+18

March 15, 1976
627
+32

June 30, 1976
636
+9

September 30, 1976
682
+46

April 1, 1977
700
+18

October 4, 1977
752
+52

August 3, 1978
798
+46

April 2, 1979
830
+32

September 29, 1979
879[130]
+49

June 28, 1980
925
+46

December 19, 1980
935
+10

February 7, 1981
985
+50

September 30, 1981
1,079
+94

June 28, 1982
1,143
+64

September 30, 1982
1,290
+147

May 26, 1983
1,389
+99
Pub.L. 98–34

November 21, 1983
1,490
+101
Pub.L. 98–161

May 25, 1984
1,520
+30

June 6, 1984
1,573
+53
Pub.L. 98–342

October 13, 1984
1,823
+250
Pub.L. 98–475

November 14, 1985
1,904
+81

December 12, 1985
2,079
+175
Pub.L. 99–177

August 21, 1986
2,111
+32
Pub.L. 99–384

October 21, 1986
2,300
+189

May 15, 1987
2,320[131]
+20

August 10, 1987
2,352
+32

September 29, 1987
2,800
+448
Pub.L. 100–119

August 7, 1989
2,870
+70

November 8, 1989
3,123
+253
Pub.L. 101–140

August 9, 1990
3,195
+72

October 28, 1990
3,230
+35

November 5, 1990
4,145
+915
Pub.L. 101–508

April 6, 1993
4,370
+225

August 10, 1993
4,900
+530
Pub.L. 103–66

March 29, 1996
5,500
+600
Pub.L. 104–121

August 5, 1997
5,950
+450
Pub.L. 105–33

June 11, 2002
6,400[132]
+450
Pub.L. 107–199

May 27, 2003
7,384
+984
Pub.L. 108–24

November 16, 2004
8,184[132]
+800
Pub.L. 108–415

March 20, 2006
8,965[133]
+781
Pub.L. 109–182

September 29, 2007
9,815
+850
Pub.L. 110–91

June 5, 2008
10,615
+800
Pub.L. 110–289

October 3, 2008
11,315[134]
+700
Pub.L. 110–343

February 17, 2009
12,104[135]
+789
Pub.L. 111–5

December 24, 2009
12,394
+290
Pub.L. 111–123

February 12, 2010
14,294
+1,900
Pub.L. 111–139

January 30, 2012
16,394
+2,100

May 19, 2013
16,700
+306