Saying your claim again on a video is not "backing it up" - evidence would back it up, repeating it is just repeating it, whatever the medium used.Originally Posted by SeriouslyDebatable
Saying your claim again on a video is not "backing it up" - evidence would back it up, repeating it is just repeating it, whatever the medium used.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Just like a budget is a partial list, that may be a partial list. There may be a more comprehensive list that may not be secret if you KNOW what you are looking for and WHERE to find it.
Can you say what that position is? There's various shades of opposite. Do you think the US federal government has more spare income than the deficit ($1.3 Trillion), and/or twice as much income as taxes (taxes being about $2 trillion), so they get $4 trillion from their "investments".
This theory seems increasingly ridiculous. Sorry, but unless you can state and back up a coherent position, then I'm done.
And there might be a robot cat orbiting the moon. Come on. Quit debating.
Not trying to debate notions here... but how is this ridiculous? You guys don't find it AT LEAST suspicious that there are 2 different reports for income and that the only one that is DISCUSSED with the public is incomplete?
Here is a positive statement. The majority of politicians and news media do not discuss the CAFR. I am willing to bet you will be hard pressed to even find ONE case of this. Can someone link me to ONE (or more) politician(s) or a mainstream news agency (or agencies) discussing the CAFR?
Give a specific example of these two different reports, provide links to the two reports, and say how one is incomplete.
And here's the 2010 Federal CAFR for starters:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/10frusg.html
All the recent CAFRs:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/backissues.html
And the budgets:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/coll...ionCode=BUDGET
People talk way more about the budget because they want to change it. The CAFR is a record of what happened, the budget is what you intend to happen.
MikeC (September 20th, 2012)
In these parts (New Zealand) all expected dividends and payments from State owned enterprises, companies, trading activities, fees & charges, etc. are included in the budget alongside Govt income from taxes, duties and anything else - there is no seperate accounting of them - and the idea that there would be really confused me until Mick's explaination above.
Last edited by MikeC; September 20th, 2012 at 07:29 PM.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Are you challenging the definition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compreh...get_and_a_CAFR
A CAFR shows the total of all financial accounting that a general purpose budget reports does not.
I asked for an example.
I asked first, Mick.
And I answered with "People talk way more about the budget because they want to change it. The CAFR is a record of what happened, the budget is what you intend to happen.", or if you like: "I can't immediately find anyone talking about a CAFR, but why would I?".
I'll give you one more chance to actually show an example of some real problem here, particularly a "conspiracy to tax", before this goes in the off-topic thread. I encourage you to consider the words in bold above carefully. Also read the entire (not very good) wikipedia article you linked, and the main source it references, and make sure you understand what it is saying.
Firstly, I understand the difference between a budget and a CAFR.
Secondly and most importantly, I did not ask your opinion on why people talk about the budget more than the CAFR. I asked whether mainstream media outlets or individual politicians talk about it or not. As for opinion on what the majority of people would rather talk about.... budget (allotments) vs CAFR (income in which allotments can be derived), the latter is more interesting and important to me, and it is my opinion that people talk way more about the budget because they have never even heard of the CAFR before. Either way you have answered my question by acknowledging my claim with this positive statement. "People talk way more about the budget". So I am right about the fact I present, am I not? As soon as you hit this part of the sentence... "because", it turned into a debate about opinion Mick. I just wanted to state a fact here, and you did not debunk that fact. You corroberated it.
So, is the CAFR secret? To most it is, yes. Is ANYTHING secret if someone tells you about it? Of course it is not, at least it is no longer secret TO YOU. Do the majority of tax payers know about the CAFR? NO! How could they? Nobody ever talks about it or even brings the subject up! We have a conspiracy, it suffices to say.
Lastly, I would like to know what an example would prove, before I venture on a request that will use my valuable time. You might be under the impression that I am trying to prove fraud. I am not trying to prove fraud, as most fraud is covered up and hard to prove anyway. I am trying to prove secrecy. The fact is that a comparison of a budget vs a CAFR is hard to find and that fact should add weight to my argument. By the way I did entertain your suggestion before making this reply, and I did spend some of my time and effort looking for a comparison, so please do not interpret my post as dismissive. I was unable to find the requested example in the time that I did spend looking for it.
But it's not secret. It's just accounting. Nobody looks at accounting because it's boring and complicated. Hardly surprising.
The CARF itself contains reference to the budget, and examines what was done relative to what was budgeted. So how can you compare a budget to something that examines the budget.
Since it's all publicly available, surely SOMEONE has pointed out a verifiable discrepancy in the last ten years.
Let me know when you find something.
Well, at the City and County level at least....the CAFR has a comparison of budget vs actual expenditures right in it....so I don't understand your statement. They aren't line item of course, but are listed by Dept or sometimes Major project. The budget is also SUPPOSED to be in place before each year.....but here at least the CAFR isn't required to be finished until 6 mos after the end of the year. So you can't do a direct comparison in real time.The fact is that a comparison of a budget vs a CAFR is hard to find and that fact should add weight to my argument.
There are articles in all the local papers about the local cities and county budget meetings and when the CAFR has been published...........I just don't understand the secrecy aspect you mention.
Tons of people are interested in finance which is why the budget is a talking point in political debates. The problem is, that finance is complicated, like you said. Because of lawyers making things even more complicated by releasing a budget separate from the CAFR, people are under the impression that the budget IS the CAFR. As you said the CAFR covers the budget, so why even have a separate budget report? Most people interested in finance (but lacking expertise in it) do not distinguish from the two. If you ask someone what is more important, "how much money do we actually have", or how much money was allotted to [x].. the common sense answer most people will give is, how much money we have is more important, as a decision is easier to make as to what to allot money to, depending on how much you actually have. You can not make a balanced budget without knowing what your finances are. The word "budget" has been made generic. Much like it is common to hear people call all tissues "kleenex" and it is common to hear people call all submarine sandwiches a "subway" sandwich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark. People literally do not recognize the difference between a budget and a CAFR and generically think that all finances are dealt with in the budget. This is what keeps the secret hiding in plain sight. Lack of self-education in the majority of the public coupled with a general lack of public awareness. Here is an experiment that we could conduct. Ask 10 random people (document if possible) if they are interested in the budget, and then if they say yes, ask them if they know what a CAFR is. I think this should be satisfactory evidence to prove my point and I can get started on this right away... But before I actually do this... and before either one of us know the result of the experiment... I have to ask: Would this type of experiment and the results it provided satisfy you?
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 21st, 2012 at 08:20 AM.
Slow down.
A budget is a plan for what income you expect and how you intend to spend the money. It's written BEFORE you spend the money.
An annual financial report is a report on how much money you got, and how you spent the money. It's written AFTER you spent the money.
You are vastly over-complicating something that's really quite straightforward.
You did not answer my question. To clarify my question; Do you agree that the term "budget" has been made generic? Yes or No (explanation for a "no" answered preferred) Please.
To answer your question about providing an example, how about this example in California?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=-Pvr-eN7Eu8
No, I mean an actual example, with the two documents, and the figures pointed out, and the differences, and not in video form.
Come on, quit debating the meaning of words, and get down to what's actually happening.
I am willing to continue my search for these documents whether or not you provide an answer to my question. In the meantime I can only hope that my request for your consideration and cooperation in answering my question will be fulfilled. I encourage anyone else to answer this question freely, and I would greatly appreciate any answer given.
1) According to the constitution, direct taxes must be apportioned. A rainy day fund is a general fund. It is not assigned to anything specific. This defies the second definition of apportion.
- Divide and allocate: "voting power will be apportioned according to contribution".
- Assign: "they did not apportion blame to anyone".
2) The CAFR is basically a "Statement of Net Worth". It shows many funds in many areas. What government promotes when people look is the "Rainy Day Fund" which is just one of many in the hopes people will stop there. Most get caught in that trap by design of the government players.
3) Remember ENRON? Well, ENRON promoted their profits and hid their debt. Government does the exact opposite: They promote their debt and hide their profit.
Forum: Off Topic and Rambles
When a thread veers off topic or becomes unproductive, it will be moved here to allow the conversation to continue without cluttering things up. Hidden from search results.
The CAFR is hidden from search results too. I wonder just how do these things happen?
Find an example and I'll move it back.
Right now it's just a wild conspiracy theory with no evidence. There's not even anything to debunk.
Wild? Here is your conspiracy Mick.
Why don't all governments (city, state, federal) require all investment funds; enterprise operations to contribute to the General Purpose operating budget each year?
The City of Mesa, AZ has been doing it in part for 40-years. They require all investment funds; enterprise operations to contribute to the General Purpose operating budget each year. The city owns the power company and they have the lowest electric rates with the enterprise operation pitching in 40 to 100 million a year to the city's general purpose operating funds.
In 1999, only 35% of the income for the general purpose accounts was satisfied by tax income. The city police had their own fund that supported based on return from 45% to 85% of their operating expenses depending on what year you look at.
So, then why don't all government bureau's have this requirement?
I have found an example of what you are requesting here:
MINN 1997 CAFR STAT SEC REV Vs EXPENDITURES 10 YEARS.pdf 08-Feb-2010 18:18 65K
Linked from:
http://cafr1.com/STATES/
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 21st, 2012 at 11:00 AM.
Very interesting Thread . . . I freely admit I am not a budget wamp but have never seen assets or income highlighted in any discussions of the Federal budget or national debt . . . would seem appropriate . . . every public organization I have been an officer in must include such information in all annual budget reports . . .
Is this an intentional redaction of such information or simply customary practice so as to simplify the presentation of budget proposals . . .
My position would be each administration in the last several decades hopes the public is as ignorant of financial issues as possible . . . giving them the freedom to play free and lose with the publics treasure . . . a conspiracy??? . . . Yes, but in a broad sense something all parties, lobbiests, and administrations do . . . just feed the public BS and keep sending pork to the chosen benefactors . . . who will get you re-elected or give you a cushy job if you don't . . . LoL!!!
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
SeriouslyDebatable (September 21st, 2012)
Yeah... what is the validity or reasoning for this law? How is a budget deficit not a "rainy day"? Who decides what a "rainy day" fund can be used for?
No matter how much unexpected money might be in the special funds, state law bars most of it from being used for other purposes such as closing the state's budget deficit, said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the Senate budget chairman.
Considering that Googling Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the name of any town, county, and even specific agencies here in Florida gets me any CAFR that I desire there is no secrecy.
Just because the media doesn't report on the details of the government balance sheets doesn't mean that these details are secret. It is just boring so the media ignores it.
If you actually go through any of the budgets and CAFRs together (the Deland example is a good one since it's CAFR actually has good detail on tax and non tax revenue and allocations) you'd see that it would be irresponsible to spend down your investment balances to cover a deficit that occurs in a given year. You know what happens if you have investment accounts that are helping to pay for your employees' pensions, building a new sewage treatment plant 3 years from now, etc... and you spend that money this year to cover a budget shortfall that occurred because revenue from property taxes crashed? You create underfunding down the road that must be covered by increased tax revenue. None of this is secret. Most of the public just doesn't pay attention to it. Most of the public ignores programs like "Capitol Report" on our local NPR station WMFE. I'm not going to go through every CAFR in the country but I pay attention to my city, county, and state and they aren't hiding money so they can tax extra.
I had already given 2 examples on the first page, but I have done what you have asked and found an (another) example (this one is non-video, comparison) Mick. Whether or not you agree it is valid evidence was not the requirement. You asked for an example. Either way nobody has debunked it yet... or even addressed it. Plus there are so called "debunked" threads in other parts of the forum and threads with no examples that are not here. Why do I have to sit in the corner? Maybe you are "getting around" to moving it a.s.a.p. but I am wondering why this thread is still in the rambles section...? If somehow the example is not what an example is defined as, then at least address it please so I can (endlessly?) find another example that meets your (new?) standards. P.S. This is not meant to sound rude. It is meant to sound frustrated.
Yeah, the politicians still need to be able to find them, so it is not secret to them. It is secret to anyone who has not already been TOLD about it. In other words, you will NEVER stumble across the CAFR. You must be SPECIFICALLY looking for that exact term. Want proof?
When you google "budget", "federal budget" "state budget" do you see any mention WHATSOEVER of a CAFR? ANYWHERE?
Since CAFR and budgets are "related" (the budget is IN the CAFR) then you should expect to find some mention of this... but you don't.
I am even willing to bet that you personally (though you may not admit it publicly) have never even HEARD of a CAFR until you came across this thread.
You see... for it to be a SECRET... then that means that SOMEONE has to know about it, while other people do not know about it.
if NOBODY knows about it, then it is simply unknown.... not a secret.... ok? So just because SOME people know about the CAFR, does NOT mean that it is not secret! They are just "in the know" about the secret.
Linking to a financial report is not an example. You need to explain what the actual problem is. i.e. quote some real numbers, with reference to the budget and the financial report, and then explain why the discrepancy is suspicious.
Right now all you have established is that financial reports exist, and that they are not budgets. Nobody has ever disputed this.
You've also claimed that financial reports are "secret" and it's been quite clearly demonstrated that they are not. I could put up a thread "Debunked: CARFs are a secret set of books the elite use to steal trillions", but it's not even that popular a conspiracy theory.
Your theory is getting increasingly odd.
I freely admit I'd never heard the word "CAFR" before you brought it up.
But I had heard of Financial Reports, and Annual Financial Reports, and sticking the word "Comprehensive" in front of it does not change a thing.
Your theory seems to state that there's a really accurate financial report that's publicly available to anyone with Google, and that's widely discussed in the alternative media, that shows EXACTLY how the government is stealing billions of dollars, and yet somehow NOBODY HAS NOTICED THIS.
It's idiotic. It's not secret. It's just a financial report.
Well here is what is suspicious Mick. This has happened every year (as listed) but I will just give one year example for expediency.
1) In 1997, Revenues (included in the CAFR only) for the state of Minnesota (in thousands) were $15,762,860 (that's $15,762,860,000)
2) Total expenditures and net transfers out (the "budget") were $14,395,684 (that's 14,395,684,000)
3) That leaves a sum of ($1,367,176,000) LEFT OVER at the end of that year. It is suspicious as to why MN needs all those extra taxes. MN is one of the highest taxed states in the union, but for what reason? They have a surplus every year.
There. Real numbers. So far I have given an example, then the goalpost shifted to a non video example, then the goalpost shifted to a specific comparison, then the goalpost shifted to me stating the numbers in said comparison and explaining my suspicions...
My opinion on why a surplus in one of the highest taxed states might be suspicious has merit. Why don't they use the extra income to lower taxes?
We could debate that all day, but that is not the issue here. Have I (finally) given a valid example? Or not?
People expect a budget to be comprehensive. This is why it is not only misleading, but it is deceptive.
Would the word "real" change anything? For example:
Here is the report.
Here is the real report.
How about "full"?
Here is the report.
Here is the full report.
If you asked your kid for a report card from his classes and the kid gave you a report card from each class, but left out a report card from a class that had a bunch of F's, and then you looked in the school records and found it and confronted your kid and he said... Well ya know dad... you never asked for the comprehensive report... would you actually let that shit fly?
Is the report card a secret? no. it is in the school records. Are the grades a secret? Yes they were! The kid basically deceived you and counted on you trusting him so that you would not go look for yourself. How is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?
I asked you to link to the actual documents for a specific example. Where are they?
"Total expenditures and net transfers out" is NOT "the budget", if that's what you think, then you seriously misunderstand the issue.
And there's nothing at all secret about Minnesota's surplus (which does NOT happen every year), it's been widely reported and explained in the press.
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/9...dy-spoken-for-
It's not hard to grasp. It's just a ridiculous analogy.
Employees pension funds , new sewage treatments.... etc... are covered in the expenditures. I am talking about "rainy day" funds and the like. Funds with no stated actual purpose. unallocated funds. GENERAL funds.
California state employees were laid off when there was a surplus in the CAFR. The video I posted earlier shows the example. Your example is not valid.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 22nd, 2012 at 07:35 AM.
MINN 1997 CAFR STAT SEC REV Vs EXPENDITURES 10 YEARS.pdf 08-Feb-2010 18:18 65K (only a few posts above)
I don't think that. I was saying that the CAFR has both the total expenditures and net transfers out, AND the revenues... whereas the budget only has the total expenditures and the net transfers out. I did not say that a budget is ONLY that. I obviously know what a budget is. It is a PROJECTION of assumed expenses. The point is that the budget lacks a serious reference point (ALL revenue and not just tax revenue) to be used as a tool for consideration.
That is a BUDGET surplus... not a surplus in the CAFR... Try again please.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 22nd, 2012 at 08:01 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks