Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Your newest member of the House Financial Services Committee
allpurpleallgold
Member Posts: 8,771
in Tug Tavern
Comments
-
I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
-
It's good that you don't care.Swaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
-
can she count?
-
Good news! She has a degree in economics.Swaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
-
All the way up to 70%.sarktastic said:can she count?
-
So does Kashama Sawant.allpurpleallgold said:
Good news! She has a degree in economics.Swaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
You're one of my favorite classy posters, but you're really struggling this morning.
-
So did Ronald Reagan.pawz said:
So does Kashama Sawant.allpurpleallgold said:
Good news! She has a degree in economics.Swaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
You're one of my favorite classy posters, but you're really struggling this morning.
You’re being a fucking idiot. -
-
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
-
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
-
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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. -
Good maybe she’ll actually get to work instead of tricking herself out on Twitter.
-
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.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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." -
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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. -
Federal spending as a % of GDP:HardlyClothed said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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. -
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.salemcoog said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:HardlyClothed said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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! -
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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. -
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit. -
So you don't care to understand what happened. You just want to think Bush had nothing to do with it and it's all Obama fault.SFGbob said:
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit.
Educate yourself man. Seriously. -
I not only care about what happened I actually know what happened, and I know that you of all people aren't going to provide me with any information that will add to my knowledge on that topic.2001400ex said:
So you don't care to understand what happened. You just want to think Bush had nothing to do with it and it's all Obama fault.SFGbob said:
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit.
Educate yourself man. Seriously.
I never claimed Bush had nothing to do with it or that it was all Obama's fault but a strawman ass fucker has got to do what a strawman ass fucker does.
The only topic you could "educate" me on Hondo is how to be a lying cocksucking piece of shit and frankly I have no interest in that.
-
Read your comments, that's exactly how they come across.SFGbob said:
I not only care about what happened I actually know what happened, and I know that you of all people aren't going to provide me with any information that will add to my knowledge on that topic.2001400ex said:
So you don't care to understand what happened. You just want to think Bush had nothing to do with it and it's all Obama fault.SFGbob said:
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit.
Educate yourself man. Seriously.
I never claimed Bush had nothing to do with it or that it was all Obama's fault but a strawman ass fucker has got to do what a strawman ass fucker does.
The only topic you could "educate" me on Hondo is how to be a lying cocksucking piece of shit and frankly I have no interest in that.
Research how much of the stimulus was spent in FY 09. Yes 10 was on Obama, stimulus, shitty economy, Medicare part D, etc. But 09 had very little to do with Obama.
That's just facts. -
The only other time in our history that spending as a percentage of our GDP was ever higher than it reached under Obama was during WWII. Since WWII there have only been 14 years where the Federal Government spent a greater percentage of our GDP than Obama did in his lowest year of spending.
For 57 years after WWII according to Hondo and idiotic friend, the United States operated under an "austerity" budget.
Vietnam, Great Society, Medicare and NASA were all financed under an "austerity" budget according to these dipshits.
-
Yes, if you're a liar and moron I'm sure that's how they come across. I never said that it was all Obama's fault or that Bush had nothing to do with it. You come across as exactly like what you are Hondo, a strawman ass fucking moron who can't address what people here actually say.2001400ex said:
Read your comments, that's exactly how they come across.SFGbob said:
I not only care about what happened I actually know what happened, and I know that you of all people aren't going to provide me with any information that will add to my knowledge on that topic.2001400ex said:
So you don't care to understand what happened. You just want to think Bush had nothing to do with it and it's all Obama fault.SFGbob said:
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit.
Educate yourself man. Seriously.
I never claimed Bush had nothing to do with it or that it was all Obama's fault but a strawman ass fucker has got to do what a strawman ass fucker does.
The only topic you could "educate" me on Hondo is how to be a lying cocksucking piece of shit and frankly I have no interest in that.
Research how much of the stimulus was spent in FY 09. Yes 10 was on Obama, stimulus, shitty economy, Medicare part D, etc. But 09 had very little to do with Obama.
That's just facts.
-
No, you just said, "Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP" in FY 2009. That would be the budget approved in calendar year 2008, of course. You're at least as honest as Daddy is, blob.SFGbob said:
Yes, if you're a liar and moron I'm sure that's how they come across. I never said that it was all Obama's fault or that Bush had nothing to do with it. You come across as exactly like what you are Hondo, a strawman ass fucking moron who can't address what people here actually say.2001400ex said:
Read your comments, that's exactly how they come across.SFGbob said:
I not only care about what happened I actually know what happened, and I know that you of all people aren't going to provide me with any information that will add to my knowledge on that topic.2001400ex said:
So you don't care to understand what happened. You just want to think Bush had nothing to do with it and it's all Obama fault.SFGbob said:
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit.
Educate yourself man. Seriously.
I never claimed Bush had nothing to do with it or that it was all Obama's fault but a strawman ass fucker has got to do what a strawman ass fucker does.
The only topic you could "educate" me on Hondo is how to be a lying cocksucking piece of shit and frankly I have no interest in that.
Research how much of the stimulus was spent in FY 09. Yes 10 was on Obama, stimulus, shitty economy, Medicare part D, etc. But 09 had very little to do with Obama.
That's just facts. -
Why won't you research how much of the stimulus was spent in the FY 09 fiscal year?SFGbob said:
Yes, if you're a liar and moron I'm sure that's how they come across. I never said that it was all Obama's fault or that Bush had nothing to do with it. You come across as exactly like what you are Hondo, a strawman ass fucking moron who can't address what people here actually say.2001400ex said:
Read your comments, that's exactly how they come across.SFGbob said:
I not only care about what happened I actually know what happened, and I know that you of all people aren't going to provide me with any information that will add to my knowledge on that topic.2001400ex said:
So you don't care to understand what happened. You just want to think Bush had nothing to do with it and it's all Obama fault.SFGbob said:
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit.
Educate yourself man. Seriously.
I never claimed Bush had nothing to do with it or that it was all Obama's fault but a strawman ass fucker has got to do what a strawman ass fucker does.
The only topic you could "educate" me on Hondo is how to be a lying cocksucking piece of shit and frankly I have no interest in that.
Research how much of the stimulus was spent in FY 09. Yes 10 was on Obama, stimulus, shitty economy, Medicare part D, etc. But 09 had very little to do with Obama.
That's just facts. -
Approved in Calendar year 2008 and passed by both the Rat held Congress and the Rat held Senate. Obama's stimulus package that was passed by the Rat held House and Rat held Senate also added to that 2009 budget.HHusky said:
No, you just said, "Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP" in FY 2009. That would be the budget approved in calendar year 2008, of course. You're at least as honest as Daddy is, blob.SFGbob said:
Yes, if you're a liar and moron I'm sure that's how they come across. I never said that it was all Obama's fault or that Bush had nothing to do with it. You come across as exactly like what you are Hondo, a strawman ass fucking moron who can't address what people here actually say.2001400ex said:
Read your comments, that's exactly how they come across.SFGbob said:
I not only care about what happened I actually know what happened, and I know that you of all people aren't going to provide me with any information that will add to my knowledge on that topic.2001400ex said:
So you don't care to understand what happened. You just want to think Bush had nothing to do with it and it's all Obama fault.SFGbob said:
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit.
Educate yourself man. Seriously.
I never claimed Bush had nothing to do with it or that it was all Obama's fault but a strawman ass fucker has got to do what a strawman ass fucker does.
The only topic you could "educate" me on Hondo is how to be a lying cocksucking piece of shit and frankly I have no interest in that.
Research how much of the stimulus was spent in FY 09. Yes 10 was on Obama, stimulus, shitty economy, Medicare part D, etc. But 09 had very little to do with Obama.
That's just facts.
I'm not denying that Bush signed the budget but Obama and his party's finger prints are also all over that spending. It's not as if Obama opposed any of that spending, and he was more than happy to take credit for TARP and the Stimulus Fraud when he could use them to claim that's how he saved us from economic ruin. -
Why are you saying you like sucking dick Hondo? Why have you done nothing to address your bullshit about Obama's budget being an "austerity" budget? Why have you done nothing to support your bullshit about Welfare being "gutted" simply because people left it as they found jobs?2001400ex said:
Why won't you research how much of the stimulus was spent in the FY 09 fiscal year?SFGbob said:
Yes, if you're a liar and moron I'm sure that's how they come across. I never said that it was all Obama's fault or that Bush had nothing to do with it. You come across as exactly like what you are Hondo, a strawman ass fucking moron who can't address what people here actually say.2001400ex said:
Read your comments, that's exactly how they come across.SFGbob said:
I not only care about what happened I actually know what happened, and I know that you of all people aren't going to provide me with any information that will add to my knowledge on that topic.2001400ex said:
So you don't care to understand what happened. You just want to think Bush had nothing to do with it and it's all Obama fault.SFGbob said:
Go fuck yourself, until you start answering questions I'm not responding to your requests Kunt.2001400ex said:
Answer these questions.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
Well given that spending went from 17.6% of GDP to 24.3% under Bush. No. I wouldn't call that austerity.SFGbob said:
Work the balls Hondo, work the balls.2001400ex said:
Stop hitting Bob with context and facts.HardlyClothed said:
Federal spending as a % of GDP:SFGbob said:
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 said:
Seems as if the people that “know a great deal about banking” tend to always side with the banks on any substantive matterSwaye said:I expect she knows a great deal about banking. Don't care. WOOD.
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.
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.
BTW. I'd also look up what that word means.
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.
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.
Bush was long gone before spending rose to 24.3% of GDP. And Obama and the rest of the Rat controlled Congress voted for TARP.
Either way, spending above 20% of GDP happened in only just a few years since WWII. Claiming 21.8% of spending to GDP while running $800B plus budget deficits represents some kind of "austerity" budget is pure bullshit.
Educate yourself man. Seriously.
I never claimed Bush had nothing to do with it or that it was all Obama's fault but a strawman ass fucker has got to do what a strawman ass fucker does.
The only topic you could "educate" me on Hondo is how to be a lying cocksucking piece of shit and frankly I have no interest in that.
Research how much of the stimulus was spent in FY 09. Yes 10 was on Obama, stimulus, shitty economy, Medicare part D, etc. But 09 had very little to do with Obama.
That's just facts.
I don't know how much of it was spent in 2009 but I know that part of it was budgeted to 2009 and added to the budget deficit. There isn't a piece of spending in that 2009 budget that Obama voted against and all of it was passed by a Rat held Congress.
