I think all of the posts you have made are ridiculous. Just my opinion of course... but how does stating this bring us any closer to a mutual understanding? Please stop using the word ridiculous.Originally Posted by Mick
Idiotic really should not be acceptable either.
If your goal is to win the hearts and minds of readers then you should be as considerate as possible.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 22nd, 2012 at 07:56 AM.
And where's the other document?
Actually, that's not even a CAFR, it's just an overview of income vs. expenditure from 1988 to 1997.
Normally I'd agree with you. But in this case it really does not seem like we are getting somewhere, so I'm trying to point out the specific things that seem ridiculous. I'd be very happy to have you explain it.
You find it suspicious that governments provide a full, complete, and honest accounting of their financial affairs. This makes very little sense to me.
Minnesota has a surplus, this is all fully explained and account for in the publicly available CAFR. You can see exactly where the money cam from, and where it is going. So what exactly is the problem?
This is from the CAFR. the CAFR INCLUDES the budget... remember? This is just the page that has the relevant information on it. the bottom line if you will. you do not need to separate physical documents to do the comparison.... but if you want it I am sure you could easily find it. I have busted my ass jumping through your little hoops and everything I have given you is never good enough and you shift the goalposts. Here. http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/budget. I already gave you the numbers. I am sure a search through their database will give you the page it is on and all the other irrelevant semantic things you are looking for.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 22nd, 2012 at 08:19 AM.
Should a state, city, county, etc. ask for higher tax revenue if they are in the black and cannot foresee a future deficit. . . ??? Seems to not yell this from the roof tops is somehow not responsible . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Show it.
So what's suspicious again? Some years they have a surplus, some they have a deficit. Heck, they seem to be doing quite well compared to other states.
To show it would be to quote the entire CAFR. So maybe you could be more precise about what you want me to show?
http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/fin/acct
No they should not. And clearly that is NOT the case with Minnesota, as they are forecasting a huge deficit.
So who is doing this?
PAGE 25 OF THE MINNESOTA CAFR FOR 2011 http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/acct/2011.pdf
The state’s total net assets increased by $1.0 billion (9.6 percent) during fiscal year 2011. Net assets of governmental activities increased by $690 million (7.4 percent), while net assets of the business-type activities showed an increase of $352 million (22.5 percent). For discussion on the variances from prior year, see the Government-wide Financial Analysis section.
So that means there should be no new taxes, and in fact, a tax decrease for 2012 right? WOULD IT BE SUSPICIOUS IF THERE WAS NOT?
As of 2012...
- Minnesota has 243 special sales tax jurisdictions with local sales taxes in addition to the state sales tax
- Minnesota has a higher state sales tax than 88.5% of states
Does this qualify as an example YET?
They are not forecasting a financial deficit, only a BUDGET deficit!!! This is just a fancy way of saying, "Yeah we know we are going to screw up the projection of how much we budgeted... we are sure that our projections will have a deficit.... but please let us deceive you and confuse you with our projections. Pay no attention to the huge pile of gold behind the curtain. don't worry about that pile of gold which has no deficits and continues to grow every year.
An example of what? You claimed:
I asked:
So where's the example?
So the Question is when is it clear when taxes are not needed to be increased to sustain government . . . ? I think the answer is NEVER because there are always more pigs at the public trough wanting new and Improved services, facilities, infrastructure etc. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Except it's not a huge pile of gold, from the next page of the report you cite:
The largest portion, $10.5 billion of $11.9 billion, of the state’s net assets reflects investment in capital assets such as land, buildings, equipment, and infrastructure (pavement, bridges, and other immovable assets), less any related outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. The state uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens. Capital assets are not considered to be convertible to cash and cannot be used to fund the daily activities of the state or pay for the debt related to capital assets. Therefore, the resources needed to repay this debt related to capital assets must be provided from other sources
I also said I needed to work on my presentation skills... Mick. I have been clarifying my suspicions since then and if you want to focus on what I said, and not what I am saying... then I am afraid I cannot help you.
Plenty of politicians want to cut taxes. They quite often do.
Pork is another issue.
Okay, well then, Minnesota, in what way are they misleading the public exactly? They have a $5 Billion deficit, they can't sell the schools and roads to cover it, so why should they lower taxes again?
Not quite. I never said anything about those investments... I am talking about the general fund. did pavement, bridges and other immovable assets increase by 1 billion in 2011? No! You are comparing apples to oranges. I am talking about the increase in funds, whereas you are talking about something that no revenue is obtained from. (buildings you own but do not rent such as the capitol... and streets.... and other immovable objects.. like a statue.)Except it's not a huge pile of gold, from the next page of the report you cite:
The largest portion, $10.5 billion of $11.9 billion, of the state’s net assets reflects investment in capital assets such as land, buildings, equipment, and infrastructure (pavement, bridges, and other immovable assets), less any related outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. The state uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens. Capital assets are not considered to be convertible to cash and cannot be used to fund the daily activities of the state or pay for the debt related to capital assets. Therefore, the resources needed to repay this debt related to capital assets must be provided from other sources
Show the 5 billion dollar deficit. If you are talking about projected budget deficits, that is not a deficit. It is a projected deficit or a "budget" deficit. Since you did not describe it as an "imaginary" deficit or "projected" deficit and you just claimed it was a "deficit" which implies that it is an ACTUAL TANGIBLE deficit, then please show the deficit from the CAFR otherwise, please re-clarify your statement.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 22nd, 2012 at 09:08 AM.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-20075976.html
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Minnesota stumbled into its second government shutdown in six years on Thursday, with a partisan divide over taxes and spending to close a $5 billion deficit becoming only more bitter as a midnight deadline came and went without agreement.
a 5 million dollar budget deficit is nothing more than a 5 million dollar mistake in their estimate when they did their figuring. It is not an actual deficit... no physical money moves anywhere.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-20075976.html
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Minnesota stumbled into its second government shutdown in six years on Thursday, with a partisan divide over taxes and spending to close a $5 billion deficit becoming only more bitter as a midnight deadline came and went without agreement.
They are talking about the budget... again. Not an ACTUAL deficit.
The word "budget" appears numerous times, whereas finances or surplus do not appear once.
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Minnesota stumbled into its second government shutdown in six years on Thursday, with a partisan divide over taxes and spending to close a $5 billion deficit becoming only more bitter as a midnight deadline came and went without agreement.
Any hope of a last-minute budget deal...
That's utterly wrong.
A budget deficit is the difference between PROJECTED income and spending. It means they are projected to spend $5 billion more than they take in.
That $5 billion either has to come from budget reserves, or it has to come from borrowing.
And actually $5 billion is out of date, it was an old projection. Here's what actually happened, and the currently forecast deficit.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...dget-forecast/
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota finance officials are projecting a second consecutive budget surplus. The new economic forecast released Wednesday shows a $323 million cushion for the current two-year budget cycle.It comes just a few months after Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner Jim Schowalter announced an unexpected budget surplus of $876 million.
That was the first surplus in four years, and state law required the money be used to restore the state's depleted cash-flow account and budget reserves. The trend of reduced state spending and better-than-expected revenue collections has continued since December, but Schowalter said the 1 percent improvement in the forecast is also spoken for under state law.
"That anticipated $323 million balance does not stick around long. It immediately goes to replenish the state's budget reserve and then starts to repay some of the school shifts for our K-12 institutions," he said.
Those delayed payments to schools helped DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislative leaders erase a $5 billion deficit and end a government shutdown last summer. They also tapped other one-time money as part of the fix. That's why another modest surplus has not yet put state finances back on solid ground for the long term.
Schowalter said the new forecast projects a $1.1 billion deficit by fiscal year 2014. That's a little better than the $1.3 billion projected in the last forecast, but he said it still presents big challenges.
"We were able to balance this year's budget, if you'll recall, with sizeable one-time resources from the tobacco bonds, from the school shift. Those aren't there in 2014-15, but the obligations and the continued programming is," said Schowalter. "So as a result, we have a structural balance that we're going to have to resolve."
Ok fine i get that, it was just a bad analogy. They spent the money. What is your point?
My point is that they had the money to spend. There is no need to obtain more from the citizens.
So what if there was a deficit in their projections vs spending... there is no deficit in their income. They have the funds to cover it.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 22nd, 2012 at 09:24 AM.
Almost correct. A budget deficit is the difference between projected TAX income and spending.
That's utterly wrong.
It means that they are projected to spend $5 billion more than the budget accounts for in tax revenue which is the only projected income that the budget covers. They have more than enough in investment revenue that they "take in" (as shown by the CAFR) to make up for the budget deficit. The only reason there is a deficit in the budget is because the budget does not list the investment revenue. If the budget listed the investment revenue then the budget would have a surplus.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 22nd, 2012 at 09:33 AM.
Okay, let me see if I that it straight. You think that because of this:
Then there should be no problem in 2014, because they should just be able to use that increase in net total assets to pay of the projected $1.1 Billion deficit. But because it's in the CAFR, then the public is unaware of this?PAGE 25 OF THE MINNESOTA CAFR FOR 2011 http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/acct/2011.pdf
The state’s total net assets increased by $1.0 billion (9.6 percent) during fiscal year 2011. Net assets of governmental activities increased by $690 million (7.4 percent), while net assets of the business-type activities showed an increase of $352 million (22.5 percent). For discussion on the variances from prior year, see the Government-wide Financial Analysis section.
Is that correct?
I am not interested in talking about imaginary things like budgets. I am interested in talking about real things like actual deficits. You say projected 1.1 Billion deficit, but this is just a word game. you are talking about the budget deficit, not a deficit in the states coffers. I refer you again to this post.
http://metabunk.org/threads/786-Is-t...ll=1#post15714
How could there be a deficit in the state's coffers? How exactly would that work?
What's actually in the state coffers? Did you actually look at the statement of assets in the CAFR?
So where exactly on that statement is the pot of gold that they can use to get rid of the deficit?
Cash and cash equivalents. Total. Five ba ba biiiiilion (puts pinky in mouth) 846 million, 293 thousand. Perhaps it looks like millions to you if you fail to notice this statement.
(In Thousands). That means you need to take those numbers and multiply them by 1000.
Okay, so then what do they use to pay the accounts payable $5 billion, or the rest of the total current liabilities?
They have many options, but using the "cash and cash equivalents" is not talked about or listed as one of these options.
Those options are not for settling accounts payable. They are to cover future spending.
Do you understand why they can't just set aside the cash for future spending?
The cash IS for accounts payable.
Do you now accept it's not actually some secret account hidden from the public?'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounts_payable
Accounts payable, also known as Creditors, is money owed by a business to its suppliers and shown on its Balance Sheet as a liability. An accounts payable is recorded in the Account Payable sub-ledger at the time an invoice is vouchered for payment. Vouchered, or vouched, means that an invoice is approved for payment and has been recorded in the General Ledger or AP subledger as an outstanding,or open, liability because it has not been paid. Payables are often categorized as Trade Payables, payables for the purchase of physical goods that are recorded in Inventory, and Expense Payables, payables for the purchase of goods or services that are expensed. Common examples of Expense Payables are advertising, travel, entertainment, office supplies and utilities. A/P is a form of credit that suppliers offer to their customers by allowing them to pay for a product or service after it has already been received.
Where did you get that definition from?
"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
Here's a helpful article on that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_deficit
The Government budget balance, also commonly referred to as general government balance,[1] public budget balance, or public fiscal balance, is the overall result of a country's general government budget over the course of an accounting period (usually one year). It includes all government levels (from national to local) and public social security funds. The budget balance is the difference between government revenues (e.g., tax) and spending. A positive balance is called a government budget surplus, and a negative balance is called a government budget deficit.
Note that's "e.g., tax", not "i.e., tax"
I should correct/clarify my earlier statement:
A budget deficit is the difference between PROJECTED income and spending. It means they are projected to spend $5 billion more than they take in.
That really should read a "projected budget deficit ..." as the actual deficit for the year is also a budget deficit, and will likely differ from the projected deficit.
Actual deficits are funded by reserves (the pot of gold) or by borrowing (usually bonds).
The cash is probably SUPPOSED to be for accounts payable, but.... can you prove that it is being used for that?
All accounts payable is, is a fancy way of saying "I owe you". There is nothing on that ledger that says when the accounts payable is due. It simply shows that it has not been paid. You show me a receipt of the "accounts payable" at 0 and the "cash and cash equivalents" at 800 million or so, and then you can make that claim.
Also if this projected deficit is supposed to cover future spending, then show me 5 billion worth of new spending in the state of Minnesota in 2012. Surely if the money was used for what you say it was, then you should be able to find where it was spent.
So what exactly are you claiming? That it's possible that there's something hidden in the accounts that nobody has noticed?
I thought there was some clear difference between the budget and the CAFR. You still have yet to provide an example.
It is clear once you explain the obfuscation. Like for example, there is PLENTY of room to put three extra digits in those fields... yet they choose to list the amounts in thousands. They do this so that the average person sees smaller amounts of money, and so they do not see the billions in cash.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; September 23rd, 2012 at 06:17 PM.
the average person does not look at those accounts at all, and those that do are probably well used to looking at numbers from which ",000" has been removed - it is common practice for all sorts of large numbers - not just money - in order to make it easier to read the numbers in the first place!
for example here is a page I use a lot - the NTSB's page of statistics for aviation in the USA - things like "Hours flown" are expressed in millions - so "12.360" instead of 12,360,000.
What conspiracy do you thnik that is evidence of???
Last edited by MikeC; September 23rd, 2012 at 06:36 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
The example is the park dept in California.
I can debunk that. A park dept itself falls under DNR jurisdiction, which is an agency of the government... but if that is not enough debunking for you...
Every one of these stash accounts is signed off on by the city; county; or state attorney.. The true fraud begins there, and usually the same is checked off on by a local judge. Last time I checked, the judiciary was one of the three branches of government.
So is my example good enough now? I don't know how widespread the fraud is, but I DID give an example of fraud here using the CAFR.
In the [any state] Consolidated annual reports you will see that surpluses are invested in funds that hold "Interest Bearing Gov Bonds" which you are liable to pay back plus interest. This is an act of conversion of your ASSET into a LIABILIY payable to your AGENT, the government. Your own surpluses are used to increase your debt burdens.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks