Tea Party Nearly Got Statistical Alice In Wonderland Into The Constitution!

[mascale]

GDP computing is not set in statute, and federal Revenue and Expenditures are not set in statute. Senator McCain is famously remaking that the Obama Stimulus was promised to keep unemployment at 8%, which is not set in statute. The Recession only last week was reported to have actually been deeper than previously thought.

The Tea Part wants that kind of charade to be what the U. S. Constitution means.

GDP changes, and methods of GDP change. Exact and precise is not what it is about.

SparkNotes: Measuring the Economy 1: Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Federal revenue and spending methods change. The Tea Party wants the statistical charade to be the U. S. Constitution.

Three quarters of GDP were revised last week.

California has trouble with its accounting, just last month. That bond rating is apparently what GOP Tea Party has in agenda for the entire USA.

That is not a charade. That is on the record in California.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many braves look to Peyote for Tea Party balanced approach! Mainly Hollywood, looks higher up!)

 

[Truthseeker420]

Grandstanding Obnoxious Pinheads

 

[WillowTree]

you izz leeches

 

[WillowTree]

wassamatter? fraid yo sugar tit is gonna run dry izz you?

 

[mascale]

Possibly the ownership and solvency of Dodger baseball will be the next statistical marvel to cross into Tea Party politicfs, in America!

Los Angeles itself had competing venues in Central City between the X-Games and the X-Rated Expo Convention. Venice Beach was transformed into an airport for the annual Hare Krishna, "Festival of The Chariots." Nothing of Los Angeles, howerver, was expected to make it into the U. S. Constitution.

This sort of thing below is what the Tea Party wants in the U. S. Constitution.

Data: Economy worse than thought - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

The Obama Administration is held to the "8% Unemployment Only," if the Stimulus were passed kind of standard. It is so far off at least 1% in the recent numbers. Now it turns out that the depth of the Great Recession was understated about one percent. And it is now only three years later!

No one would call that any way to run a national economy: Until the Tea Party wanted the numbers official in the U. S. Constitution(?)! Since Bush was bad, then now the Tea Party, GOP, can be said even worse!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Maybe turn to Lands of Many Nations: Get better settings in favor of the House(?)!)

 

[Ernie S.]

Just what are you babbling about? Are you trying to translate Swahili into English with Google?

 

[mascale]

The House Low Cut, Night Cap, What-Me-Balanced(?), legislation on paper, created reliance on Big Government statistics, easily manlipulated. That appears to have not occurred to any of the House members, supportive of the Boehner last minute concept.

The new likely outcome is compatible with Keynesian budgeting--once the crisis is past-- and can set in motion even a more limited marketplace for the rich kind of intervention that Reagan started.

Widespread Wealth Worldwide is not a Republican--only Bill Gates allowed to have anything at all--kind of concept. That is why Democratic Leftists are currently less than sjupportive of the Reagan Trajectory that Obama crteated.

The Reagan-Bush-Bush legacy of deficigts as far as the mind can imagine is now being regjecgted, even by the Party of Regan-Bush-Bush itself.

The Clinton Democrats, in fact, had created a different trajectory, only a decade or so ago.
That was a Keynesian-consistent trajectory, statistically modified.

"Crow, James Crowl Shaken, Not Stirred."
(The more California kind of bond-rating legacy, created by those Alice-in-Wonderland Republicans: Is appaently being rejected at the national level.)

 

[gslack]

The House Low Cut, Night Cap, What-Me-Balanced(?), legislation on paper, created reliance on Big Government statistics, easily manlipulated. That appears to have not occurred to any of the House members, supportive of the Boehner last minute concept.

The new likely outcome is compatible with Keynesian budgeting--once the crisis is past-- and can set in motion even a more limited marketplace for the rich kind of intervention that Reagan started.

Widespread Wealth Worldwide is not a Republican--only Bill Gates allowed to have anything at all--kind of concept. That is why Democratic Leftists are currently less than sjupportive of the Reagan Trajectory that Obama crteated.

The Reagan-Bush-Bush legacy of deficigts as far as the mind can imagine is now being regjecgted, even by the Party of Regan-Bush-Bush itself.

The Clinton Democrats, in fact, had created a different trajectory, only a decade or so ago.
That was a Keynesian-consistent trajectory, statistically modified.

"Crow, James Crowl Shaken, Not Stirred."
(The more California kind of bond-rating legacy, created by those Alice-in-Wonderland Republicans: Is appaently being rejected at the national level.)

Looks to me like you are rambling off talking points and attempting to connect them on the fly... Frankly your posting I have read so far is cryptic and reads like a Haiku. Maybe you are going for an artistic kind of presentation here, if so remember if people can't make sense of what you're saying you are neither entertaining nor informing them...

 

[zzzz]

The House Low Cut, Night Cap, What-Me-Balanced(?), legislation on paper, created reliance on Big Government statistics, easily manlipulated. That appears to have not occurred to any of the House members, supportive of the Boehner last minute concept.

The new likely outcome is compatible with Keynesian budgeting--once the crisis is past-- and can set in motion even a more limited marketplace for the rich kind of intervention that Reagan started.

Widespread Wealth Worldwide is not a Republican--only Bill Gates allowed to have anything at all--kind of concept. That is why Democratic Leftists are currently less than sjupportive of the Reagan Trajectory that Obama crteated.

The Reagan-Bush-Bush legacy of deficigts as far as the mind can imagine is now being regjecgted, even by the Party of Regan-Bush-Bush itself.

The Clinton Democrats, in fact, had created a different trajectory, only a decade or so ago.
That was a Keynesian-consistent trajectory, statistically modified.

"Crow, James Crowl Shaken, Not Stirred."
(The more California kind of bond-rating legacy, created by those Alice-in-Wonderland Republicans: Is appaently being rejected at the national level.)

Looks to me like you are rambling off talking points and attempting to connect them on the fly... Frankly your posting I have read so far is cryptic and reads like a Haiku. Maybe you are going for an artistic kind of presentation here, if so remember if people can't make sense of what you're saying you are neither entertaining nor informing them...

At least a haiku is only 3 lines long!!!

 

[mascale]

Many versions of the House language are on the internet, like as follows:

"SEC. 201. LIMIT ON TOTAL SPENDING.

(a) Definitions- Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking paragraph (4), redesignating the succeeding paragraphs accordingly, and adding the following new paragraph:
`(19) The term `GDP', for any fiscal year, means the gross domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with Department of Commerce definitions.'.
(b) Caps- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after section 318 the following new section:

`SEC. 319. ENFORCING GDP OUTLAY LIMITS.

`(a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to--
`(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by
`(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.
`(b) GDP Outlay Limit and Outlays-
`(1) DETERMINING THE GDP OUTLAY LIMIT- The Office of Management and Budget shall establish in the President's budget the GDP outlay limit for the budget year.
`(2) TOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS- In this section, total Federal outlays shall include all on-budget and off-budget outlays"

--The Department of Commerce is actually not a Constitutionally prescribed agenchy, and could easily be abolished.
--The concept of the "definitions" leaves GDP up to a lot of interpretation all by itself.
--"Projected GDP" is then the language.
--Budgets do rely on incomes estimates and how they are treated by accountants.
--California had that problem, only a few weeks ago.

The "balanced budget" part was left to "undecided" regarding what was meant.

Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations, also know already: White Eyes marks on processed crap of forest branches(?)! Many squaws now bring shiny trinkets! Make Better Sense!"

 

[blastoff]

GDP computing is not set in statute, and federal Revenue and Expenditures are not set in statute. Senator McCain is famously remaking that the Obama Stimulus was promised to keep unemployment at 8%, which is not set in statute. The Recession only last week was reported to have actually been deeper than previously thought.

The Tea Part wants that kind of charade to be what the U. S. Constitution means.

GDP changes, and methods of GDP change. Exact and precise is not what it is about.

SparkNotes: Measuring the Economy 1: Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Federal revenue and spending methods change. The Tea Party wants the statistical charade to be the U. S. Constitution.

Three quarters of GDP were revised last week.

California has trouble with its accounting, just last month. That bond rating is apparently what GOP Tea Party has in agenda for the entire USA.

That is not a charade. That is on the record in California.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many braves look to Peyote for Tea Party balanced approach! Mainly Hollywood, looks higher up!)

Try it again once you've sobered up.

 

[gslack]

Many versions of the House language are on the internet, like as follows:

"SEC. 201. LIMIT ON TOTAL SPENDING.

(a) Definitions- Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking paragraph (4), redesignating the succeeding paragraphs accordingly, and adding the following new paragraph:
`(19) The term `GDP', for any fiscal year, means the gross domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with Department of Commerce definitions.'.
(b) Caps- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after section 318 the following new section:

`SEC. 319. ENFORCING GDP OUTLAY LIMITS.

`(a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to--
`(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by
`(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.
`(b) GDP Outlay Limit and Outlays-
`(1) DETERMINING THE GDP OUTLAY LIMIT- The Office of Management and Budget shall establish in the President's budget the GDP outlay limit for the budget year.
`(2) TOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS- In this section, total Federal outlays shall include all on-budget and off-budget outlays"

--The Department of Commerce is actually not a Constitutionally prescribed agenchy, and could easily be abolished.
--The concept of the "definitions" leaves GDP up to a lot of interpretation all by itself.
--"Projected GDP" is then the language.
--Budgets do rely on incomes estimates and how they are treated by accountants.
--California had that problem, only a few weeks ago.

The "balanced budget" part was left to "undecided" regarding what was meant.

Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations, also know already: White Eyes marks on processed crap of forest branches(?)! Many squaws now bring shiny trinkets! Make Better Sense!"

Ok you're either drunk or high and I have lost interest in your ramblings now.. When you want to post something legible let me know...

 

[mascale]

Mascale posted the grits of Tea Party/Boehner Cut, Cap And Balance, below, and then there is the comment about the below as follows: "Ok you're either drunk or high and I have lost interest in your ramblings now.. When you want to post something legible let me know..."

So everyone sees that the Tea Party is On Notice From America(?): On this message board of The Truth!"

Mascale's post is reproduced below, which is actually the languge of the Boehner Bill. . .unless it's not the final version(?), which is how Democracy works(?)!

"Many versions of the House language are on the internet, like as follows:

'SEC. 201. LIMIT ON TOTAL SPENDING.

(a) Definitions- Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking paragraph (4), redesignating the succeeding paragraphs accordingly, and adding the following new paragraph:
`(19) The term `GDP', for any fiscal year, means the gross domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with Department of Commerce definitions.'.
(b) Caps- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after section 318 the following new section:

`SEC. 319. ENFORCING GDP OUTLAY LIMITS.

`(a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to--
`(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by
`(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.
`(b) GDP Outlay Limit and Outlays-
`(1) DETERMINING THE GDP OUTLAY LIMIT- The Office of Management and Budget shall establish in the President's budget the GDP outlay limit for the budget year.
`(2) TOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS- In this section, total Federal outlays shall include all on-budget and off-budget outlays'

--The Department of Commerce is actually not a Constitutionally prescribed agenchy, and could easily be abolished.
--The concept of the "definitions" leaves GDP up to a lot of interpretation all by itself.
--"Projected GDP" is then the language.
--Budgets do rely on incomes estimates and how they are treated by accountants.
--California had that problem, only a few weeks ago.

The 'balanced budget' part was left to 'undecided' regarding what was meant.

Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations, also know already: White Eyes marks on processed crap of forest branches(?)! Many squaws now bring shiny trinkets! Make Better Sense!"

 

[BoycottTheday]

Its a democrat spam bot out of control?

Some people should not be allowed near computers.

 

[mascale]

The Old Fat White People, Cavorting About Naked On Other People's Yachts--Dumping Substance and Other Treasure Into The Sea--Are now better said to have all fallen overboard, from their party attempts to rival the most recent of the royal weddings.

National government and imagery is not an apparent one of their stronger abilities: Unlike Her Majesty's grandaughter, and new in-law--the rest of the royals and the guests!

By all accounts, the wedding event was anyone's idea of a truly national party, at work!

Anarchy is a socialist form, post-Widespread Wealth Worldwide, which is arithmetic! It may in fact be starting to catch on as a prevailing concept, if not ruling!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken,Not Stirred!"
(The national appearance of the newly married hustand. . . in the suit(?). . .was more likley understood by the newer generations, in fact, even not in attendance!)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just what are you babbling about? Are you trying to translate Swahili into English with Google?

That is the best summation of mascale's posting I have ever seen.

 

[mascale]

The Boehner Bill text version has been posted, and everyone sees what that really means:

"Just what are you babbling about? Are you trying to translate Swahili into English with Google?
That is the best summation of mascale's posting I have ever seen."

Even Sarah Palin knows about the Blood Libel, GOP in the USA!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!:
(No More Pencils. . .No More Books. . .No More Problems With The National Debt. . . Hmmm. . . .Intended By Tea Party and Speaker Boehner! It's on their permanent records! The Stimulus worked, And now the bills get paid!)

 

[Ernie S.]

The Boehner Bill text version has been posted, and everyone sees what that really means:

"Just what are you babbling about? Are you trying to translate Swahili into English with Google?
That is the best summation of mascale's posting I have ever seen."

Even Sarah Palin knows about the Blood Libel, GOP in the USA!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!:
(No More Pencils. . .No More Books. . .No More Problems With The National Debt. . . Hmmm. . . .Intended By Tea Party and Speaker Boehner! It's on their permanent records! The Stimulus worked, And now the bills get paid!)

OK I'll try to make it easier for you to reply"

Tu ni nini mropoko kuhusu? Je, wewe ni kujaribu kutafsiri Kiswahili kwa Kiingereza na Google?

Hiyo ni summation bora ya mascale ya posting mimi umewahi kuonekana. "