Your newest member of the House Financial Services Committee

allpurpleallgold

Swaye

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

pawz

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

It's good that you don't care.

sarktastic

can she count?

allpurpleallgold

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Good news! She has a degree in economics.

allpurpleallgold

sarktastic said:

can she count?

All the way up to 70%.

pawz

allpurpleallgold said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Good news! She has a degree in economics.

So does Kashama Sawant.



You're one of my favorite classy posters, but you're really struggling this morning.

allpurpleallgold

pawz said:

allpurpleallgold said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Good news! She has a degree in economics.

So does Kashama Sawant.



You're one of my favorite classy posters, but you're really struggling this morning.

So did Ronald Reagan.

You’re being a fucking idiot.

Sledog

HardlyClothed

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

SFGbob

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

HardlyClothed

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

2001400ex

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.

Kaepsknee

Good maybe she’ll actually get to work instead of tricking herself out on Twitter.

SFGbob

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

So if people get a job and move off of welfare, that means welfare has been "gutted." Which just goes to show that the entire purpose of Welfare for liberals is to create a permanent dependent class. That never leaves the system.

As far as spending as a percentage of GDP wasn't 2012 through 2016 part of the great Obama economic boom? Why would you expect spending to stay at the same level as 2009 and 2010 when the economy sucked and are GDP growth was awful? And all of those numbers are still higher than what we were spending through out the 1950s thru the 1970s.

So unless you spend a greater percentage of your GDP than at any time during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and most of the 1990s and 2000s, all while running a $700Billion budget deficit you're engaging in "austerity."

Gosh I wonder why Hondo isn't accusing you of lying by leaving out this "Context."

SFGbob

2001400ex said:

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.

Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.

I thought the goal of welfare was to transition people back into the workforce making them productive members of society. Now we know that's an example of Welfare being "gutted."

Did we have an "austerity" budget under George W. Bush Hondo? Because there wasn't a single year of his presidency where the Federal Government spent more than 21% our GDP and every year but one was less than then numbers you're giving me now as "austerity." Hell in 2001 we spend 17.6% of our GDP and I don't recall anyone talking about austerity. Weird how you left out that "context" and those "facts."

Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.

Kaepsknee

HardlyClothed said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

Looks like we have a lot of work to do in relation to reducing Federal Spending. Lots more people on welfare now though. Sound like we may need a furlough for those people as well so that they will get a job.

CirrhosisDawg

salemcoog said:

HardlyClothed said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

Looks like we have a lot of work to do in relation to reducing Federal Spending. Lots more people on welfare now though. Sound like we may need a furlough for those people as well so that they will get a job.

Where’s GayBob taking you to dinner tonight? Did you buy some new special attire for the occasion? You played coy long enough. I’m so happy for the both of you!

2001400ex

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.

Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.

I thought the goal of welfare was to transition people back into the workforce making them productive members of society. Now we know that's an example of Welfare being "gutted."

Did we have an "austerity" budget under George W. Bush Hondo? Because there wasn't a single year of his presidency where the Federal Government spent more than 21% our GDP and every year but one was less than then numbers you're giving me now as "austerity." Hell in 2001 we spend 17.6% of our GDP and I don't recall anyone talking about austerity. Weird how you left out that "context" and those "facts."

Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.

Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.

BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.

SFGbob

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.

Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.

I thought the goal of welfare was to transition people back into the workforce making them productive members of society. Now we know that's an example of Welfare being "gutted."

Did we have an "austerity" budget under George W. Bush Hondo? Because there wasn't a single year of his presidency where the Federal Government spent more than 21% our GDP and every year but one was less than then numbers you're giving me now as "austerity." Hell in 2001 we spend 17.6% of our GDP and I don't recall anyone talking about austerity. Weird how you left out that "context" and those "facts."

Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.

Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.

BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.

Bush was long gone from office when spending went to 24.3% of GDP Hondo and that number comes from the depth of the recession and includes both TARP and stimulus fraud spending.

I don't need to look up the meaning of austerity Hondo, you're the one who has your own person Kunt definition for words, not me.

2001400ex

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

HardlyClothed said:

SFGbob said:

HardlyClothed said:

Swaye said:

I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.

Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matter

And rather that happen than a dipshit you claimed we "gutted" welfare in the 1990s despite the fact that welfare spending increased by $30B during the 90s. Or someone who thinks a budget with $700B in deficit spending is a sign of "austerity."

Federal spending as a % of GDP:
2009 - 24.3%
2010 - 23%
2011 - 23%
2012 - 21.8%
2013 - 20.5%
2014 - 20%
2015 - 20%
2016 - 20%

Number of welfare recipients in 2000 declined by 53% from 1996.

I know that yelling on this website is how you get your daily dopamine hit but you can log off now.

Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.

Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.

I thought the goal of welfare was to transition people back into the workforce making them productive members of society. Now we know that's an example of Welfare being "gutted."

Did we have an "austerity" budget under George W. Bush Hondo? Because there wasn't a single year of his presidency where the Federal Government spent more than 21% our GDP and every year but one was less than then numbers you're giving me now as "austerity." Hell in 2001 we spend 17.6% of our GDP and I don't recall anyone talking about austerity. Weird how you left out that "context" and those "facts."

Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.

Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.

BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.

Bush was long gone from office when spending went to 24.3% of GDP Hondo and that number comes from the depth of the recession and includes both TARP and stimulus fraud spending.

I don't need to look up the meaning of austerity Hondo, you're the one who has your own person Kunt definition for words, not me.

Answer these questions.

Who pushed tarp?
How much of the stimulus was spent by 2009 year end?

And Bush was in charge for almost 4 of the 9 months of 09.