(05-30-2013 12:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 10:00 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  City Hall is worth its weight in rubble. That is all that matters at this point.

Right now it looks like City Hall is worth negative 53 million dollars.

So basically the city took something that was worth 13 million to the tax payers and turned it into a net deficit of about 66 million.

Wow. That really makes economic sense.

13 million? Did you factor expected required maintenance costs?

If you are going to state "NET DEFICIT", at least make sure it is indeed NET.... Applying selective accounting methods such as combining accounting, loan, and market values to further an argument, only creates a distorted financial picture.

(05-30-2013 11:38 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 12:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 10:00 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  City Hall is worth its weight in rubble. That is all that matters at this point.

Right now it looks like City Hall is worth negative 53 million dollars.

So basically the city took something that was worth 13 million to the tax payers and turned it into a net deficit of about 66 million.

Wow. That really makes economic sense.

13 million? Did you factor expected required maintenance costs?

If you are going to state "NET DEFICIT", at least make sure it is indeed NET.... Applying selective accounting methods such as combining accounting, loan, and market values to further an argument, only creates a distorted financial picture.

City Council clearly stated that the building was worth 13 million dollars regardless of repairs.

Rather than sell the building, they chose to demolish it and then borrow 53 million to build a stadium.

That is a net 66 million dollars in the red.

(05-31-2013 12:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 11:38 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 12:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 10:00 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  City Hall is worth its weight in rubble. That is all that matters at this point.

Right now it looks like City Hall is worth negative 53 million dollars.

So basically the city took something that was worth 13 million to the tax payers and turned it into a net deficit of about 66 million.

Wow. That really makes economic sense.

13 million? Did you factor expected required maintenance costs?

If you are going to state "NET DEFICIT", at least make sure it is indeed NET.... Applying selective accounting methods such as combining accounting, loan, and market values to further an argument, only creates a distorted financial picture.

City Council clearly stated that the building was worth 13 million dollars regardless of repairs.

Rather than sell the building, they chose to demolish it and then borrow 53 million to build a stadium.

That is a net 66 million dollars in the red.

Were you going to buy it?

Who was looking to buy it? There are holding costs in that scenario.
And how do you know it would sell for 13 million?

Again, there are also monies that were going to be needed to repair or maintain. Buyers (doubtful there would've been any) would want it up to par too.

All I'm saying, is paint the full picture.

(05-31-2013 12:57 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 11:38 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 12:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 10:00 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  City Hall is worth its weight in rubble. That is all that matters at this point.

Right now it looks like City Hall is worth negative 53 million dollars.

So basically the city took something that was worth 13 million to the tax payers and turned it into a net deficit of about 66 million.

Wow. That really makes economic sense.

13 million? Did you factor expected required maintenance costs?

If you are going to state "NET DEFICIT", at least make sure it is indeed NET.... Applying selective accounting methods such as combining accounting, loan, and market values to further an argument, only creates a distorted financial picture.

City Council clearly stated that the building was worth 13 million dollars regardless of repairs.

Rather than sell the building, they chose to demolish it and then borrow 53 million to build a stadium.

That is a net 66 million dollars in the red.

Were you going to buy it?

Who was looking to buy it? There are holding costs in that scenario.
And how do you know it would sell for 13 million?

Again, there are also monies that were going to be needed to repair or maintain. Buyers (doubtful there would've been any) would want it up to par too.

All I'm saying, is paint the full picture.

Okay let's paint a full and simple picture.

The city took something of value and they destroyed it to build something that for which they had to take out a loan.

So in simple terms they took an asset and turned it into a debt.

(05-31-2013 01:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:57 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 11:38 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 12:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Right now it looks like City Hall is worth negative 53 million dollars.

So basically the city took something that was worth 13 million to the tax payers and turned it into a net deficit of about 66 million.

Wow. That really makes economic sense.

13 million? Did you factor expected required maintenance costs?

If you are going to state "NET DEFICIT", at least make sure it is indeed NET.... Applying selective accounting methods such as combining accounting, loan, and market values to further an argument, only creates a distorted financial picture.

City Council clearly stated that the building was worth 13 million dollars regardless of repairs.

Rather than sell the building, they chose to demolish it and then borrow 53 million to build a stadium.

That is a net 66 million dollars in the red.

Were you going to buy it?

Who was looking to buy it? There are holding costs in that scenario.
And how do you know it would sell for 13 million?

Again, there are also monies that were going to be needed to repair or maintain. Buyers (doubtful there would've been any) would want it up to par too.

All I'm saying, is paint the full picture.

Okay let's paint a full and simple picture.

The city took something of value and they destroyed it to build something that for which they had to take out a loan.

So in simple terms they took an asset and turned it into a debt.

An asset that needed additional capital investment. A debt that would have been a debt in any other location...... Again, paint a full picture. Otherwise, you are just applying selective methods.

(05-31-2013 01:07 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 01:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:57 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 11:38 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  13 million? Did you factor expected required maintenance costs?

If you are going to state "NET DEFICIT", at least make sure it is indeed NET.... Applying selective accounting methods such as combining accounting, loan, and market values to further an argument, only creates a distorted financial picture.

City Council clearly stated that the building was worth 13 million dollars regardless of repairs.

Rather than sell the building, they chose to demolish it and then borrow 53 million to build a stadium.

That is a net 66 million dollars in the red.

Were you going to buy it?

Who was looking to buy it? There are holding costs in that scenario.
And how do you know it would sell for 13 million?

Again, there are also monies that were going to be needed to repair or maintain. Buyers (doubtful there would've been any) would want it up to par too.

All I'm saying, is paint the full picture.

Okay let's paint a full and simple picture.

The city took something of value and they destroyed it to build something that for which they had to take out a loan.

So in simple terms they took an asset and turned it into a debt.

An asset that needed additional capital investment. A debt that would have been a debt in any other location...... Again, paint a full picture. Otherwise, you are just applying selective methods.

Bottom line.

We destroyed an asset and incurred a debt. Whether or not it was a good investment remains to be seen.

All research in similar matters however say it won't.

(05-31-2013 01:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 01:07 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 01:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:57 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  City Council clearly stated that the building was worth 13 million dollars regardless of repairs.

Rather than sell the building, they chose to demolish it and then borrow 53 million to build a stadium.

That is a net 66 million dollars in the red.

Were you going to buy it?

Who was looking to buy it? There are holding costs in that scenario.
And how do you know it would sell for 13 million?

Again, there are also monies that were going to be needed to repair or maintain. Buyers (doubtful there would've been any) would want it up to par too.

All I'm saying, is paint the full picture.

Okay let's paint a full and simple picture.

The city took something of value and they destroyed it to build something that for which they had to take out a loan.

So in simple terms they took an asset and turned it into a debt.

An asset that needed additional capital investment. A debt that would have been a debt in any other location...... Again, paint a full picture. Otherwise, you are just applying selective methods.

Bottom line.

We destroyed an asset and incurred a debt. Whether or not it was a good investment remains to be seen.

All research in similar matters however say it won't.

Circles Fitbud..... Circles

You can't even give him the credit of arguing in circles in this case. He made a statement and it was shredded to shyt. He had no choice but to play the "bottom line" card which didn't have a lot to do with his original statement. Hit him again with facts and you are going to get the "it's common knowledge and most would agree..."

(05-31-2013 01:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 01:07 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 01:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:57 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 12:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  City Council clearly stated that the building was worth 13 million dollars regardless of repairs.

Rather than sell the building, they chose to demolish it and then borrow 53 million to build a stadium.

That is a net 66 million dollars in the red.

Were you going to buy it?

Who was looking to buy it? There are holding costs in that scenario.
And how do you know it would sell for 13 million?

Again, there are also monies that were going to be needed to repair or maintain. Buyers (doubtful there would've been any) would want it up to par too.

All I'm saying, is paint the full picture.

Okay let's paint a full and simple picture.

The city took something of value and they destroyed it to build something that for which they had to take out a loan.

So in simple terms they took an asset and turned it into a debt.

An asset that needed additional capital investment. A debt that would have been a debt in any other location...... Again, paint a full picture. Otherwise, you are just applying selective methods.

Bottom line.

We destroyed an asset and incurred a debt. Whether or not it was a good investment remains to be seen.

All research in similar matters however say it won't.

debt brings on assets. Simple accounting formula for you fit.... Assets = liabilities + owners equity

and since there is no such thing as owners equity in governmental accounting.... do you get the point now?

By the way, if you want to talk about debt, maybe you should try using real numbers.... El Paso county accounts for 3% of the Texas population, yet El Paso county only accounts for 1% of the state debt. If you knew anything about business, you would understand that is not a good ratio

Clearly you have no clue.

Anything that causes money to go out is not an asset.

If we are making payments on a stadium then it's not an asset.

(05-31-2013 11:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Clearly you have no clue.

Anything that causes money to go out is not an asset.

If we are making payments on a stadium then it's not an asset.

you gotta be the dumbest son of a ***** ever....

LOL, sorry Fitbud, you are just drowning in this thread. LOL.

no wonder this dumb **** hates progress, he probably can't even balance his own check book... GTFO

Since you won't take my word for it.

An asset is something that puts money in my pocket.
A liability is something that takes money out of my pocket.

Since assets put money in your pocket, you should keep buying assets, or building assets. Do not buy liabilities, do away with liabilities.

CASH FLOW PATTERNS of

Poor

Job (provides income)-> Expenses(Taxes Food Rent Clothes Fun Transportation)
Asset (none)
Liability (none)

Middle Class

Job (provides income)-> Expenses(Taxes Food Mortgage Clothes Fun Transportation)
Asset (none)
Liability (Mortgage Consumer loans Credit Cards)

Rich

Assets(stocks bonds notes real estate intellectual property)->income (dividends interest rental
income royalties)
Liabilities (none)

The diagrams show the flow of cash through a poor, middle class or wealthy person’s life. It is the cash flow that tells the story. It is the story of how a person handles their money, what they do after they get the money in their hand.

“The rich acquire assets and the poor and middle
class acquire liabilities.”- Robert Kiyosaki

So that’s all I have for you about assets vs liabilities, I’ll be posting more about Rich dad poor dad, stick around till then, and keep SHARING.

To earn money smartly like Robert Kiyosaki- here’s a chance to build an asset to put money in your pocket for lifetime:
http://socialmediabar.com/make-money-with-vivekmehrotra

I see the right click button on Fitbud's mouse still works. When all else fails, copy and paste something...

fitbud, you idiot. What do bonds produce???? Cash... What is the first asset account on a balance sheet??? Cash... You have no clue about what you're talking about... How was city hall built? You shouldn't talk about stuff you don't know

Bonds don't put money in your pocket until you sell them. It's the same with a house. A house is not an asset because it takes money out of your pocket. Not until you sell.

The baseball stadium isn't making the city money as long as we pay for it. Which will be the next 30 years at least.

SO many erroneous statements in your post..... Where to start?

-Assets do not put money in your pocket. The true money in your pocket is the amount equal to the equity listed in the balance sheet.
-Money in your pocket is placed there by the management of those assets and their ROI or ROA
-Assets are normally acquired through financing (liabilities), so liabilities are not a bad thing. It's liability management and the ROI/ROA that will dictate if they are good or bad.
-Assets which do not produce to reach at minimum, a break-even point during the asset's economic life (asset depreciation based on how long it is expected to be functional) are also a waste/loss. So not all assets have economic-gain value. Some are better off disposed of (sold, and even bulldozed)
-The rich acquire assets through capital investment and acquisition costs (cash, etc.). In other words, they pay for them.
-When people refer to poor acquiring debt. It is either govermental deficit/debt, or consumber debt. But we have a say in both (politically, and by maintaining personal budget)
-You make it sound as if we acquire the debt for the rich, while they acquire the assets free and clear. That's not even close to being true.


As Randaddy mentioned earlier.... This goes back to the Accounting Equation. Assets= Liabilities + Equity

This is why staring at numbers don't apply to this situation. The city could pay off the stadium tomorrow and it wouldn't bring in very much money for them. It's a quality of life investment. Not an investment to earn (very) much money. MountainStar owns the team. The City gets to use the stadium a certain amount of dates a year. Not enough to recoup 50 million. It's an investment in the City and its way of life.

(06-01-2013 03:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Bonds don't put money in your pocket until you sell them. It's the same with a house. A house is not an asset because it takes money out of your pocket. Not until you sell.

The baseball stadium isn't making the city money as long as we pay for it. Which will be the next 30 years at least.

you've been going to too many rich dad, poor dad workshops. Do your self a favor and look up liquidity ratios, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.