Elizabeth Warren endorses sending the economy into a severe recession in 2020

PurpleThrobber

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Reagan has growth rates that Obama never even got in the same area code on

Reagan also got unemployment rates Obama never even got in same area code on. Your point race?

Reagan had growth rates that Obama never got in the same area code on

And China has growth rates that would embarrass Reagan. Again. You have no point Race.

Going from $1 to $2 is 100% growth. Going from $1 Trillion to $1.1 Trillion is only a 10% growth rate.

Race knows maff.

2001400ex

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Reagan has growth rates that Obama never even got in the same area code on

Reagan also got unemployment rates Obama never even got in same area code on. Your point race?

Reagan had growth rates that Obama never got in the same area code on

And China has growth rates that would embarrass Reagan. Again. You have no point Race.

Going from $1 to $2 is 100% growth. Going from $1 Trillion to $1.1 Trillion is only a 10% growth rate.

Race knows maff.

So growth matters except for China. Cause they are like .000001% the size of America. Brilliant analysis.

TheKobeStopper

UW_Doog_Bot said:

TheKobeStopper said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

TheKobeStopper said:

Name the last republican president that didn’t have a recession.

It's hard hitting analysis and questions like this that make me respekt team #hondobros.

Stop dodging and answer the question.

And Trump hasn’t completed his first term (we all know a recession is coming) so he doesn’t count.

I see you are resorting to the HondoBro/FSBob classic "Answer the question!#!@#"

Shooting for the stars.

Economic cycles lag political cycles, hth. Or do we now get to blame Obama for the 2009 financial crisis?

That’s. The. Joke.

You already do blame Obama for 2009.

TheKobeStopper

RaceBannon said:

And yet the subject is another democratic front runner who is an economic moron

But but but

I would say the people voting for the party that has, over and over again, been responsible for recessions are the economic morons.

But hey, it’s not like you’re Race Bannon and have ever cared about results. No, just make up a bunch of excuses for why the results don’t matter. That’s what doogs like you always do.

PurpleThrobber

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Reagan has growth rates that Obama never even got in the same area code on

Reagan also got unemployment rates Obama never even got in same area code on. Your point race?

Reagan had growth rates that Obama never got in the same area code on

And China has growth rates that would embarrass Reagan. Again. You have no point Race.

Going from $1 to $2 is 100% growth. Going from $1 Trillion to $1.1 Trillion is only a 10% growth rate.

Race knows maff.

So growth matters except for China. Cause they are like .000001% the size of America. Brilliant analysis.

I know. It's hard to dumb it down for you.

WestlinnDuck

The last recession was a result of the housing bubble and mandated lower lending standards. All supported by dems who crushed any attempts to reform the process. The rescission was then extended and the recovery weak because of barry putting a governor on the economic throttle - taxes and regulation. Who was the moron that said we can't drill our way to lower energy prices? Here is a hint, it wasn't Palin.

2001400ex

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Reagan has growth rates that Obama never even got in the same area code on

Reagan also got unemployment rates Obama never even got in same area code on. Your point race?

Reagan had growth rates that Obama never got in the same area code on

And China has growth rates that would embarrass Reagan. Again. You have no point Race.

Going from $1 to $2 is 100% growth. Going from $1 Trillion to $1.1 Trillion is only a 10% growth rate.

Race knows maff.

So growth matters except for China. Cause they are like .000001% the size of America. Brilliant analysis.

I know. It's hard to dumb it down for you.

Given that China is more than half the US GDP and around 75%, I feel your maff is wrong. So you can strut around all you want but you still look dumb. Got it pookie?

HoustonHusky

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Reagan has growth rates that Obama never even got in the same area code on

Reagan also got unemployment rates Obama never even got in same area code on. Your point race?

Reagan had growth rates that Obama never got in the same area code on

And China has growth rates that would embarrass Reagan. Again. You have no point Race.

Going from $1 to $2 is 100% growth. Going from $1 Trillion to $1.1 Trillion is only a 10% growth rate.

Race knows maff.

So growth matters except for China. Cause they are like .000001% the size of America. Brilliant analysis.

I know. It's hard to dumb it down for you.

Given that China is more than half the US GDP and around 75%, I feel your maff is wrong. So you can strut around all you want but you still look dumb. Got it pookie?

GDP per capita USA 2018: $54,542
GDP per capita China 2018: $7,755

GDP per capita 2010 USA $48,466
GDP per capita 2010 China $4,500

HondoFS. You are a moron. It is embarrassing. I'd recommend turning off your computer and turning on something more your level...say NickJr?

PurpleThrobber

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Reagan has growth rates that Obama never even got in the same area code on

Reagan also got unemployment rates Obama never even got in same area code on. Your point race?

Reagan had growth rates that Obama never got in the same area code on

And China has growth rates that would embarrass Reagan. Again. You have no point Race.

Going from $1 to $2 is 100% growth. Going from $1 Trillion to $1.1 Trillion is only a 10% growth rate.

Race knows maff.

So growth matters except for China. Cause they are like .000001% the size of America. Brilliant analysis.

I know. It's hard to dumb it down for you.

Given that China is more than half the US GDP and around 75%, I feel your maff is wrong. So you can strut around all you want but you still look dumb. Got it pookie?

My maff is exactly correct. There's no 'feels' in maff.

1.1 Trillion/1 Trillion equals exactly a 10% increase.

So fuck thyself off.

2001400ex

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleThrobber said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Reagan has growth rates that Obama never even got in the same area code on

Reagan also got unemployment rates Obama never even got in same area code on. Your point race?

Reagan had growth rates that Obama never got in the same area code on

And China has growth rates that would embarrass Reagan. Again. You have no point Race.

Going from $1 to $2 is 100% growth. Going from $1 Trillion to $1.1 Trillion is only a 10% growth rate.

Race knows maff.

So growth matters except for China. Cause they are like .000001% the size of America. Brilliant analysis.

I know. It's hard to dumb it down for you.

Given that China is more than half the US GDP and around 75%, I feel your maff is wrong. So you can strut around all you want but you still look dumb. Got it pookie?

GDP per capita USA 2018: $54,542
GDP per capita China 2018: $7,755

GDP per capita 2010 USA $48,466
GDP per capita 2010 China $4,500

HondoFS. You are a moron. It is embarrassing. I'd recommend turning off your computer and turning on something more your level...say NickJr?

Throbber point had nothing to do with GDP per capita idiot.