• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

I'm not sure I should even bother trying to tell you you're wrong. You need to work on your chart reading skills...I'll leave it at that.
Well, you haven't exactly convinced anyone you know how to read a chart, so why don't you give a try and tell us what that chart says?
 
Well, you haven't exactly convinced anyone you know how to read a chart, so why don't you give a try and tell us what that chart says?

Well, if I were trying to argue that Bill Clinton reduced the debt and I posted a chart to prove my point, I would start by reading the title of the chart. Since I know that debt and debt-to-GDP ratio are two different quantities and that my position is not supported by reality, I would stop trying to make said argument. But that's just what I would do...
 

Moot has a tendency to go mute when confronted with actual facts. I posted the actual debt to the penny but Moot only recognizes the public debt and not total debt in her arguments. then as you pointed out debt is quite a bit different than debt to GDP ratio and there is no evidence that Clinton lower the debt and in fact increased the debt each year during his term.

There really is a passion these days to divert from the mess we have in D.C. today and the three trillion Obama has added to the debt in just two years but for some reason Reagan is brought into the debate for increasing the debt 1.7 trillion in 8 years. Don't know about you but I would take 1.7 trillion in 8 years over 3 trillion in two any day.
 

What am I getting out of it besides the ability to get loans? You are aware what a bank is, right? If I deposit my money into it, they can loan it to you. You pay them interest, they take their cut, and then they pay me interest. It's not just a holding tank where rich people hide their money to keep it away from the riff-raff like. I know the current banking system allows them to lend more than what they have in deposits, but their deposits still determine how much they can ultimately lend. If all the rich people took all their money out of the banks, they'd be out of business. Why do you think we have the FDIC? Answer: to reduce the risk and encourage rich people keep their savings in a bank so that the money can be used to expand the economy.

I'll ask you a question, why aren't the banks lending?

Because people who qualify for loans don't want to borrow any money right now. I'm about to test that theory personally in the next few weeks. If I'm wrong and I can't get a home loan, I'll come back and say you were right...

LAMO, Warren Buffet is one of Obama's economic advisors.

My point is that Warren Buffet has forgotten more about the economy in the last 5 minutes than Obama will ever know, and he doesn't need Obama to invest his money for him (and neither do you or I).
 
Well, since you think you know more than the Treasury Department does about their own chart, then maybe should tell them they were wrong, too. :roll:

"....After this period, the debt's growth closely matched the rate of inflation until the 1980s, when it again began to increase rapidly. Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled. The debt shrank briefly after the end of the Cold War, but by the end of FY 2008, the gross national debt had reached $10.3 trillion, about 10 times its 1980 level.
Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History
 
:lamo Did you pull that story out of you arse? Too funny.
 

I can still read the title of your chart and it still is not a chart showing public debt.

I can read where it says the debt shrank briefly after the end of the cold war. It doesn't say when that occurred or for how long. The cold war ended in 1991, so that doesn't mean a whole lot to your argument. Conservative posted the numbers for year end national debt since 1993 and every year the number is bigger than the one before. So, are you arguing that the debt shrank briefly for a few days or weeks? I might be willing to concede that point if you can show me something besides a graph of an entirely different quantity.
 
:lamo Did you pull that story out of you arse? Too funny.

oddly enough he is right. The way banks are meant to work is that someone with a lot of money begins to loan his money to others. And in return he gets money monthly from interests until they have paid off the debt. Anyways that is the way the banking system is suppose to work and for some time it did. Also the banks use people(who have an account) money's to loan to other individuals and businesses.
 

Not quite how the big banks have been working lately.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…