It isn't even the politicians' fault. We won't elect anybody that doesn't tell us what we want to hear. If anybody came out and said we need to cut spending and said where they would cut it, and how much, they wouldn't get elected (at least if the amount was sufficient to accomplish anything). Tax increases, whether with cuts in spending or not, don't fly either. When we stop living in a dream world, we'll get something done.

(02-17-2009 03:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Your analogy -- and this is VERY VERY important -- operates under the assumption that there is a banker who will continue to loan you money as you slide further and further into debt. When the baby boomer tsunami hits .... who will continue to loan the USA money then? By 2040, the US will only be able to afford interest on the debt, and SOME SS/Medicare benefits. Everything else they do they will have to finance through debt. Would you really feel good about being a banker to that? The US is already on the verge of losing its AAA credit rating ... and I feel like one of the surest investments you can make today is shorting US Treasuries and Bonds.

Not really. There is STILL value in the PV of the ability to tax the US economy, so regardless of our debt situation, we have an asset that is unaccounted for... besides... if/when they stop financing our debt, our currrency goes in the crapper, but our future obligations are all dollar denominated as well, so it doesn't matter to the calculation of net worth... in dollars. If you want to compare it to another currency, or some hard good, fine... but that involves a whole other set of assumptions.

(02-17-2009 04:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It isn't even the politicians' fault. We won't elect anybody that doesn't tell us what we want to hear. If anybody came out and said we need to cut spending and said where they would cut it, and how much, they wouldn't get elected (at least if the amount was sufficient to accomplish anything). Tax increases, whether with cuts in spending or not, don't fly either. When we stop living in a dream world, we'll get something done.

Agreed, and I said it earlier. I LOVE how some are calling this stimulus the largest tax cut in history... how can THAT be, when there is no commensurate spending cut nor plan for earning back this expense?? All we are doing is banking on the largest tax INCREASE in US history to come under (likely) another administration... and we'll praise those who were irresponsible and spent, and curse those who were responsible and paid for it.

we get what we deserve

(02-17-2009 02:30 PM)Artifice Wrote:  Hambone has won this thread, and it's not close.

How the Heck would you know, you did not understand a word he said, He!! you can barely read.

(02-17-2009 10:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll call BS on this conforming to GAAP. PV of the future liabilities is certainly GAAP apvd, but failing to PV the assets and calling it a statement of financial condition is a lie.

I beg to differ with you on this, I see your're fond of Enron's accounting principals.

(02-17-2009 06:52 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(02-17-2009 10:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll call BS on this conforming to GAAP. PV of the future liabilities is certainly GAAP apvd, but failing to PV the assets and calling it a statement of financial condition is a lie.

I beg to differ with you on this, I see your're fond of Enron's accounting principals.

Beg all you want... you're still wrong.

No... I'm fond of accurate accounting. Are you saying the future value of our economy and our government's ability to generate revenue from it is not an asset? Show me where the current value of our parks and natural resources are in the above calculation. Show me the value of the strategic petroleum reserve... I could go on and on... and all of those assets constitute the "full faith and credit" that backs up our liabilities.

The article in question, and the one YOU are defending is doing Enron accounting... Assets on ONE companies balance sheet... liabilities on another.... but I bet you didn't know that was Enron's problem, did you.

Dude, value is only worth what someone will pay for it. Whose to say what the future holds. It's an illusion. What's it worth in the aftermath of a natural or manmade disaster? Remember Auther Anderson? Enron failed not only as you stated but because one of the biggest Accounting firms in the country HELP THEM COOK THE BOOKS. Enron and Anderson employees paid a heavy price. Who was there to bail them out?

$65.5 trillion may not scare the hell out of you but it does me no matter how anyone wants to cook the (numbers) books.

(02-17-2009 09:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Beg all you want... you're still wrong.

No... I'm fond of accurate accounting. Are you saying the future value of our economy and our government's ability to generate revenue from it is not an asset? Show me where the current value of our parks and natural resources are in the above calculation. Show me the value of the strategic petroleum reserve... I could go on and on... and all of those assets constitute the "full faith and credit" that backs up our liabilities.

The article in question, and the one YOU are defending is doing Enron accounting... Assets on ONE companies balance sheet... liabilities on another.... but I bet you didn't know that was Enron's problem, did you.

Sorry, but a ton of our National Parks have been handed over to the U.N. (believe it or not)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread45831/pg1

So there goes your National Forest Land Asset argument right there .... they have been whore'd out to BACK Loans from every swangin' dickie on the planet.

So you see how this foolish idea that BACKING Things With Real Value creeps in and bites you on the rumpus when you least expect it ??

It isn't funny when you wake up and head out to the "Park" for a weeks vacation and you get there and U.N. Troops turn you away .... Why we thought all this land belonged to the United States .... after all, it is Real Estate inside our Borders.

Yeah, uh huh.

Just peruse the info in the above link and the links in the article for more research on how you have been stolen from and conned by your fantastic Fed.

"The first rule in overthrowing a society is to TAKE THEIR PROPERTY ..."

The 2nd rule is to simply TAKE THE SOCIETY any way you have too.

.

Trip,
They are coming for the Guns and Ammo.

(02-17-2009 10:52 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Trip,
They are coming for the Guns and Ammo.

They can have'em. Bullets first.

(02-17-2009 10:28 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Dude, value is only worth what someone will pay for it. Whose to say what the future holds. It's an illusion. What's it worth in the aftermath of a natural or manmade disaster? Remember Auther Anderson? Enron failed not only as you stated but because one of the biggest Accounting firms in the country HELP THEM COOK THE BOOKS. Enron and Anderson employees paid a heavy price. Who was there to bail them out?

$65.5 trillion may not scare the hell out of you but it does me no matter how anyone wants to cook the (numbers) books.

Dude, try reading. I said in my first post that the totals were a problem... but lying about the problem doesn't make it any better... in fact it just makes you look like you made up the numbers.

YOU are cooking the books, not me. YOU are Arthur Anderson, not me.

(02-17-2009 11:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-17-2009 10:28 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Dude, value is only worth what someone will pay for it. Whose to say what the future holds. It's an illusion. What's it worth in the aftermath of a natural or manmade disaster? Remember Auther Anderson? Enron failed not only as you stated but because one of the biggest Accounting firms in the country HELP THEM COOK THE BOOKS. Enron and Anderson employees paid a heavy price. Who was there to bail them out?
$65.5 trillion may not scare the hell out of you but it does me no matter how anyone wants to cook the (numbers) books.

Dude, try reading. I said in my first post that the totals were a problem... but lying about the problem doesn't make it any better... in fact it just makes you look like you made up the numbers.
YOU are cooking the books, not me. YOU are Arthur Anderson, not me.

Enron didn't fail becuase they cooked the books. They failed because they ran out of cash flow. The significance of cooking the books was that it kept investors from realizing that the cash was running out. But cooking the books didn't cause the problem, it just hid it until it was too late.

And for the record, it's Andersen, not Anderson. Or was.

I submit, that long before the cash ran out Auther Anderson, (Andersen - for the spelling police) was instrumental in the fraud accounting practice, they even spread the practices to MCI WorldCom and Quest. They fiddled while Rome burned.

Hambone, the point is that it's all lies. Just that, your lies and my lies are not the same lies. Nuff said

(02-17-2009 11:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-17-2009 10:52 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Trip,
They are coming for the Guns and Ammo.

They can have'em. Bullets first.

EXACTLY and it is Illegal as Per the Constitution (at least while we still have The Constitution). [Fixed]

I am sure Obami is clicking his Ruby Red Slippers all day long trying to get that horrible set of Documents to Just Disappear.

Maybe they could hire Nick Cage to steal it .....

But Agreed .... Bullets First ....

.

(02-18-2009 11:56 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Hambone, the point is that it's all lies. Just that, your lies and my lies are not the same lies. Nuff said

If you believe that proper accounting is lies, then what is the point in accounting for it at all, or posting about it? No offense, but your comments are part of the problem, not the solution. You're fussing at those who screwed us up, and contributing to their lies.

I don't believe its misleading to state the value of your assets AND the value of your liabilities and claim that that is a reasonable estimate of your financial condition. I don't believe that representing your annual debt service needs and your expected annual income as your statement of cashflow is intentionally misleading.

I DO believe that accounting for the present value of ALL your liabilities and measuring it against your current years cashflow is completely misleading, and comparing it to some unrelated third number even worse... because it causes people to (just as you are) assume it is all lies, and that nothing can be done about it except some unrealistic draconian solution, like writing off our debt or going back on the gold standard.

If we try and be as honest as possible about our debts and assets, then we can address the issue of spending more than we're bringing in... or likely to bring in in the future without HUGE tax increases... otherwise, we're just wasting time, and MY (our) money because we can't simply be honest (as a country).

Just as with "Mark-to-market accounting" all accounting practices can give rise to scandals. It often does. If you cannot understand that, your knowledge of accounting is worth zilch.

(02-18-2009 01:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Just as with "Mark-to-market accounting" all accounting practices can give rise to scandals. It often does. If you cannot understand that, your knowledge of accounting is worth zilch.

does that make non-accounting better?? Or does it make so obviously mis-stating the reality better?

I think I can make a compelling argument that mark-to-market accounting eliminates many more scandals than it creates... but that is compounded when things don't have reliable markets... or when Congress makes exceptions... and that doesn't mean that just because something is difficult to value that you should ignore it.

Perfect example... I believe you said you (or someone on this board) have a home with no mortgage and no other debt. Let's assume you are retired and have no pension. Let's further assume you had income of $15,000 this year from wheat you grow on your land. You also have anticipated taxes of 10,000/year. Obviously, you had positive cashflow this year (which is more than I can say for our government, but that is another argument) and you have all of your assets. If I simply value the PV of your future tax obligations, they outstrip your income quite substantially. Certainly, calculating the PV of an expected future liability is GAAP apvd... By this measure alone, you are technically insolvent. Is that a realistic picture of your financial condition? We COULD simply say that you made $5,000 this year, but that ignores some realities... Would it not be more accurate to include the anticipated future value of your wheat sales?

Why would ANYONE argue against better disclosure?