View Full Version : The Mysterious CAFRs
The Mysterious CAFRs:
How Stagnant Pools Of Government Money Could Help Save The Economy (http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mysterious_cafrs.php)
For over a decade, accountant Walter Burien has been trying to rouse the public over what he contends is a massive conspiracy and cover-up, involving trillions of dollars squirreled away in funds maintained at every level of government. His numbers may be disputed, but these funds definitely exist, as evidenced by the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) required of every government agency. If they don’t represent a concerted government conspiracy, what are they for? And how can they be harnessed more efficiently to help allay the financial crises of state and local governments?
The Elusive CAFR Money
Burien (http://www.rense.com/general2/bigsecret.htm) is a former commodity trading adviser who has spent many years peering into government books. He notes that the government is composed of 54,000 different state, county, and local government entities, including school districts, public authorities, and the like; and that these entities all keep their financial assets in liquid investment funds, bond financing accounts and corporate stock portfolios. The only income that must be reported in government budgets is that from taxes, fines and fees; but the investments of government entities can be found in official annual reports (CAFRs), which must be filed with the federal government by local, county and state governments. These annual reports show that virtually every U.S. city, county, and state has vast amounts of money stashed away in surplus funds. Burien maintains that these slush funds have been kept concealed from taxpayers, even as taxes are being raised and citizens are being told to expect fewer government services.
It is hard to envision how all the municipal governments hording their excess money in separate funds could be complicit in a massive government conspiracy, but if that is not what is going on, why such an inefficient use of public monies?
A Simpler Explanation
I got a chance to ask that question in April, when I was invited to speak at a conference of Government Finance Officers in Missouri. The friendly public servants at the conference explained that maintaining large “rainy day” funds is simply how local governments must operate. Unlike private businesses, which have bank credit lines they can draw on if they miscalculate their expenses, local governments are required by law to balance their budgets; and if they come up short, public services and government payrolls may be frozen until the voters get around to approving a new bond issue. This has actually happened, bringing local government to a standstill. In emergencies, government officials can try to borrow short-term through “certificates of participation” or tax participation loans, but the interest rates are prohibitively high; and in today’s tight credit market, finding willing lenders is difficult.
To avoid those unpredictable contingencies, municipal governments will keep a cushion of from 20% to 75% more than their budgets actually require. This money is invested, but not necessarily lucratively. One finance officer, for example, said that her city had just bid out $2 million as a 30-day certificate of deposit (CD) to two large banks at a meager annual interest of 0.11%. It was a nice spread for the banks, which could leverage the money into loans at 6% or so; but it was a pretty sparse deal for the city.
Meanwhile, Back in California
That was in Missouri, but the figures I was particularly interested were for my own state of California, which was struggling with a budget deficit of $26.3 billion (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl,0,95571.htmlstory) as of April 2010. Yet the State Treasurer’s website says that he manages a Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA) (http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/performance/sum_invest_data.pdf) tallying in at nearly $71 billion as of the same date, including a Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) of $24 billion. Why isn’t this money being used toward the state’s deficit? The Treasurer’s answer to this question, which he evidently gets frequently, is that legislation forbids it. His website (http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/laif-statute.asp) states:
“Can the State borrow LAIF dollars to resolve the budget deficit?
“No. California Government Code 16429.3 states that monies placed with the Treasurer for deposit in the LAIF by cities, counties, special districts, nonprofit corporations, or qualified quasi-governmental agencies shall not be subject to either of the following:
“(a) Transfer or loan pursuant to Sections 16310, 16312, or 16313.
“(b) Impoundment or seizure by any state official or state agency.”
The non-LAIF money in the pool can’t be spent either. It can be borrowed, but it has to be paid back. When Governor Schwarzenegger tried to raid the Public Transportation Account for the state budget, the California Transit Association took him to court and won (http://www.caltransit.org/node/1138). The Third District Court of Appeals ruled in June 2009 that diversions from the Public Transportation Account to fill non-transit holes in the General Fund violated a series of statutory and constitutional amendments enacted by voters via four statewide initiatives dating back to 1990.
In short, the use of these funds for the state budget has been blocked by the voters themselves. Bond issues are approved for particular purposes. When excess funds are collected, they are not handed over to the State toward next year’s budget. They just sit idly in an earmarked fund, drawing a modest interest.
What’s Wrong with This Picture?
California’s budget problems have caused its credit rating to be downgraded to just above that of Greece, driving the state’s interest tab skyward. In November 2009, the state sold 30-year taxable securities carrying an interest rate of 7.26% (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-25/california-markets-second-biggest-taxable-bond-sale-of-2010.html). Yet California has never defaulted on its bonds. Meanwhile, the too-big-to-fail banks, which would have defaulted on hundreds of billions of dollars of debt if they had not been bailed out by the states and their citizens, are able to borrow from each other at the extremely low federal funds rate, currently set at 0 to .25% (one quarter of one percent). The banks are also paying the states quite minimal rates for the use of their public monies, and turning around and relending this money, leveraged many times over, to the states and their citizens at much higher rates. That is assuming they lend at all, something they are increasingly reluctant to do, since speculating with the money is more lucrative, and investing it in federal securities is more secure.
Private banks clearly have the upper hand in this game. Local governments have been forced to horde funds in very inefficient ways, building excessive reserves while slashing services, because they do not have the extensive credit lines available to the private banking system. States cannot easily incur new debt without voter approval, a process that is cumbersome, time-consuming and uncertain. Banks, on the other hand, need to keep only the slimmest of reserves, because they are backstopped by a central bank with the power to create all the reserves necessary for its member banks, as well as by Congress and the taxpayers themselves, who have been arm-twisted into repeated bailouts of the Wall Street behemoths.
How the CAFR Money Could Be Used Without Spending It
California, then, is in the anomalous position of being $26 billion in the red and plunging toward bankruptcy, while it has over $70 billion stashed away in an investment pool that it cannot touch. Those are just the funds managed by the Treasurer. According to California’s latest CAFR, the California Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (CalPERS) has total investments of $360 billion, including nearly $144 billion in “equity securities” and $37 billion in “private equity.” See the State of California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/cafr09web.pdf) for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009, pages 83-84.
This money cannot be spent, but it can be invested -- and it can be invested not just in conservative federal securities but in equity, or stocks. Rather than turning this hidden gold mine over to Wall Street banks to earn a very meager interest, California could leverage its excess funds itself, turning the money into much-needed low-interest credit for its own use. How? It could do this by owning its own bank.
Only one state currently does this -- North Dakota. North Dakota is also the only state (http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/growing_movement.php) projected to have a budget surplus by 2011. It has not fallen into the Wall Street debt trap afflicting other states, because it has been able to generate its own credit through its own state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND).
An investment in the State Bank of California would not be at risk unless the bank became insolvent, a highly unlikely result since the state has the power to tax. In North Dakota, the BND is a dba of the state itself: it is set up as “the State of North Dakota doing business as (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota) the Bank of North Dakota.” That means the bank cannot go bankrupt unless the state goes bankrupt.
The capital requirement for bank loans is a complicated matter, but it generally works out to be about 7%. (According to Standard & Poor’s, the worldwide average risk-adjusted capital ratio (https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox) stood at 6.7 per cent as of June 30, 2009; but for some major U.S. banks it was much lower: Citigroup's was 2.1 per cent; Bank of America’s was 5.8 per cent.) At 7%, $7 of capital can back $100 in loans. Thus if $7 billion in CAFR funds were invested as capital in a California state development bank, the bank could generate $100 billion in loans.
This $100 billion credit line would allow California to finance its $26 billion deficit at very minimal interest rates, with $74 billion left over for infrastructure and other sorely needed projects. Studies have shown (http://www.mkeever.com/kent.html) that eliminating the interest burden can cut the cost of public projects in half. The loans could be repaid from the profits generated by the projects themselves. Public transportation, low-cost housing, alternative energy sources and the like all generate fees. Meanwhile, the jobs created by these projects would produce additional taxes and stimulate the economy. Commercial loans could also be made, generating interest income that would return to state coffers.
Building a Deposit Base
To start a bank requires not just capital but deposits. Banks can create all the loans (http://winterspeak.blogspot.com/2009/09/loans-create-deposits-how-banks.html) they can find creditworthy borrowers for, up to the limit of their capital base; but when the loans leave the bank as checks, the bank needs to replace the deposits taken from its reserve pool in order for the checks to clear. Where would a state-owned bank get the deposits necessary for this purpose?
In North Dakota, all the state’s revenues are deposited in the BND by law. Compare California, which has expected revenues for 2010-11 of $89 billion (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/RevenueEstimates.pdf). The Treasurer’s website (http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/reports/53annualrpt.pdf) reports that as of June 30, 2009, the state held over $18 billion on deposit as demand accounts and demand NOW accounts (basically demand accounts carrying a very small interest). These deposits were held in seven commercial banks, most of them Wall Street banks: Bank of America, Union Bank, Bank of the West, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, Westamerica Bank, and Citibank. Besides these deposits, the $64 billion or so left in the Treasurer’s investment pool could be invested in State Bank of California CDs. Again, most of the bank CDs in which these funds are now invested are Wall Street or foreign banks (http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/investments/banks.pdf). Many private depositors would no doubt choose to bank at the State Bank of California as well, keeping California’s money in California. There is already a movement afoot to transfer funds out of Wall Street banks into local banks.
While the new state-owned bank is waiting to accumulate sufficient deposits to clear its outgoing checks, it can do what other startup banks do – borrow deposits from the interbank lending market at the very modest federal funds rate (0 to .25%).
To avoid hurting California’s local banks, any state monies held on deposit with local banks could remain there, since the State Bank of California should have plenty of potential deposits without these funds. In North Dakota, local banks are not only not threatened by the BND but are actually served by it, since the BND partners with them, engaging in “participation loans” that help local banks with their capital requirements.
Taking Back the Money Power
We have too long delegated the power to create our money and our credit to private profiteers, who have plundered and exploited the privilege in ways that are increasingly being exposed in the media. Wall Street may own Congress, but it does not yet own the states. We can take the money power back at the state level, by setting up our own publicly-owned banks. We can “spend” our money while conserving it, by leveraging it into the credit urgently needed to get the wheels of local production turning once again.
Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt (http://www.webofdebt.com/), her latest of eleven books, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com (http://www.webofdebt.com/), www.ellenbrown.com (http://www.ellenbrown.com/), and www.public-banking.com (http://www.public-banking.com/).
The Mysterious CAFRs:
How Stagnant Pools Of Government Money Could Help Save The Economy (http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mysterious_cafrs.php)
The best source I've found online that explains the CAFR is:
Gerald R. Klatt
Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Former: Auditor/Commander, Air Force Audit Agency
Federal Accountant
http://cafrman.com/
Very useful.
I believe that Elaine is on the right track.
Having a state bank may very well do the trick. And using the CAFRs to fund the bank makes complete sense. The BoND seems to have protected North Dakotans for almost a century.
The best source I've found online that explains the CAFR is:
Gerald R. Klatt
Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Former: Auditor/Commander, Air Force Audit Agency
Federal Accountant
http://cafrman.com/ (http://cafrman.com/)
Great link.
It does, however, show that Ellen Brown is wrong.
The $70B she refers to in the general fund is not the same money as what Mr. Gerald Klatt is referring to; the California link in question shows the general fund (in 2003) had only a surplus of $3.8B - which today is clearly negative.
Of the $56B+ in the CAFRMAN link, almost half is between the UC and SCIF; the former the University of California system and the latter the workman's comp state insurance fund.
C1ue,
Elaine Brown is not suggesting that the money be withdrawn and used to balance the budget! Legally, all of that money is untouchable for that purpose, including the one in the General Fund.
Her suggestion is to do what North Dakota did in 1919
From the wiki on BND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota)
The Bank of North Dakota (BND) is a state-owned and -run financial institution based in Bismarck, North Dakota. Under state law the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.
All state and local government agencies are required to place their funds in the bank. Previously, all public corporations in the state were also required to deposit their funds in the bank, but an initiated measure in 1919 eliminated that requirement[citation needed]. Other entities may also open accounts at the Bank; however, BND offers fewer retail services than other institutions, and has only one office, limiting its competitiveness in consumer banking.
Instead, BND has taken a role more akin to a central bank, and has many functions, such as check clearing, that might be expected from a branch office of the Federal Reserve. The Bank does have an account with the Federal Reserve Bank, but deposits are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, instead being guaranteed by the general fund of the State of North Dakota itself and the taxpayers of the State.
BND also guarantees student loans (through its Student Loans of North Dakota division), business development loans, and state and municipal bonds.
Though initially conceived by Non-Partisan League populists as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the Bank's functions were largely neutered by the time of its inception by the business-backed Independent Voters Association. The recall of NPL Governor Lynn Frazier effectively ended the initial plan, with BND taking a more conservative central banking role in state finance. The current president and CEO is Eric Hardmeyer, however the bank is managed by the North Dakota Industrial Commission, which is composed of the Governor, Attorney General, and the Agriculture Commissioner(formerly the Agriculture and Labor Commissioner) of North Dakota[1].
The Bank of North Dakota is the only state-owned facility of its type in the United States other than the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank.
[edit]
From the BND website (http://www.banknd.nd.gov/about_BND/history_of_BND.html)
During the early 1900's, North Dakota's economy was based on agriculture. Serious in-state problems prevented cohesive efforts in buying and selling crops and financing farm operations. Grain dealers outside the state suppressed grain prices; farm suppliers increased their prices; and interest rates on farm loans climbed.
By 1919, popular consensus wanted state ownership and control of marketing and credit agencies. Thus, the state legislature established Bank of North Dakota and the North Dakota Mill and Elevator Association.
Bank of North Dakota (BND) was charged with the mission of "promoting agriculture, commerce and industry" in North Dakota. It was never intended for BND to compete with or replace existing banks. Instead, Bank of North Dakota was created to partner with other financial institutions and assist them in meeting the needs of the citizens of North Dakota.
BND opened July 28, 1919, with $2 million of capital. Over the years, our fiscal responsibilities to the state have increased dramatically. Today, the Bank operates with more than $270 million in capital. The State of North Dakota began using bank profits in 1945 when money was first transferred into the General Fund. Since that time, capital transfers have become the norm to augment state revenues.
Commercial, farm and secondary market real estate programs were established to benefit state residents and the local financial institutions who serve them. BND’s federal funds program provides an alternative funding source for banks to access additional capital for consumer loans.
In 1967, Bank of North Dakota made the first federally insured student loan in the nation. The Bank continues to provide a variety of loans for students and their families wanting to pursue post-secondary education.
In partnership with more than 100 other North Dakota financial institutions, Bank of North Dakota continues to meet and expand its 90-plus year mission to promote the development of agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.
Thus California could start a state bank, move the CAFR money to the bank, and use normal bank leveraging to earn more money. BoND is a part of the Fed system, but not a part od the FDIC as it has no depositors other than the state of ND.
Thus California could start a state bank, move the CAFR money to the bank, and use normal bank leveraging to earn more money. BoND is a part of the Fed system, but not a part od the FDIC as it has no depositors other than the state of ND.
Everything you say here is correct, but note that Ellen Brown pointed to the PMIA as opposed to the CAFR.
The PMIA appears to primarily be the state general fund plus some ancillary funds; it does not comprise the majority of the California CAFR. If indeed the PMIA is the general fund float - it cannot be used for started a California state bank. The money must be available at any given instant for the spending it is earmarked to do.
My understanding may be wrong, but I would also point out that a number of the CAFR entities may be legally prohibited from having their funds used for outside purposes - whether state spending or funding a state bank.
The SCIF, for example, likely is not allowed to have its float be used for any other purposes which involve risk since theoretically there can be a rash of worker's comp cases at any moment.
Again, this doesn't detract from the principle of California being able to start a state bank, nor does it deny the principle that there is unspent money available.
But vague and incorrect characterizations of CAFRs isn't going to work.
She talks about him, but isn't linking to his site?
http://cafr1.com/
grapejelly
05-24-10, 07:33 PM
not that it matters but two observations:
1. The Constitution forbids states from emitting bills of credit. HAHAHAHAHA. That was funny!
2. I have a retirement account, say an IRA. Instead of investing it in stocks and bonds of sound companies, one day I get the idea: I will invest it to pay off my credit card debts. That way, I won't have those debts, won't be paying, say, 15% interest.
3. I do so, and my IRA is emptied. I continue my profligate ways, and I end up penniless, and with big credit card debts.
This raid of CAFR funds is exactly like that. It is the next step towards complete bankruptcy and insolvency, which is inevitable. It is another step towards that ultimate bankruptcy of all governments when they take every piece of wealth away from the lower and middle class (the upper class will be safe of course) as is fast happening.
Grape, I think you should read this before forming your opinion
Bank of North Dakota FAQ's (http://www.banknd.nd.gov/about_BND/pdfs/faqs.pdf)
This raid of CAFR funds is exactly like that. It is the next step towards complete bankruptcy and insolvency, which is inevitable. It is another step towards that ultimate bankruptcy of all governments when they take every piece of wealth away from the lower and middle class (the upper class will be safe of course) as is fast happening.
Precisely. However, in today's world, they don't actually have to raid the CAFR funds, they simply have to convince the public, through media propaganda and studies from academia, that the funds no longer exist.
nathanhulick
05-25-10, 10:12 AM
I seriously cannot believe that this nonsense is showing up here again on Itulip.
Walter Burien is either a con man or an extremely mentally deluded individual. He is also a convicted felon. The same goes for Ellen Hodgson Brown (minus the felon part). She used to write about Kevin Trudeau style 'Medical Cures They Don't Want You To Know About!!' She has written books on homeopathy and another convicted felon, Jimmy Keller, who scammed cancer patients out of millions of dollars and probably cost some of them their lives. Both of these two sick individuals make their living scamming people.
Here is great writup I saw on reddit, where someone who actually does understand how to read a CAFR debunks this nonsense.
I have to say, this site has really gone downhill. I remember reading it years ago, before there was a forum, and they were selling novelty shares in itulip.com as a joke. I still have mine somewhere. Back then there was a lot more good information, and none of this tinfoil hat crowd stuff. Maybe things are better on the paid subscribers forum, I haven't had a membership to that section in years, though.
In the last few years, a new conspiracy has been peddled around the internet. This conspiracy is being spread by people who do not have the basic accounting skills required to understand a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, or scam artists who are trying to take advantage of people. The origin of this conspiracy theory appears to be Walter Burien, con man and convicted felon who claims that there is a massive conspiracy involving literally every single government entity in the United States, from the smallest local governments, through state governments, and even the Federal Government. The fact that a conspiracy so vast that it would have to involve literally hundreds of thousands of people would be impossible to keep secret does not dissuade people from believing it. Another claim made by Burien and repeated by Ellen Hodgson Brown was that a retired military officer who reported this conspiracy died of mysterious circumstances. To date neither has presented any actual evidence of this claim.
After noticing this theory being posted at sites throughout the internet which I would not normally consider “conspiracy sites”, I tried to do some google searching to find an easy, simple explanation I could point people to which would explain how to read a CAFR, and why the government is obviously not hiding tens of trillions of dollars from everyone. Unfortunately I was unable to easily find a simple write-up, so I decided to create my own. I dusted off the trusty old Governmental and Not-for-profit Accounting textbooks, and hopefully what I have presented here is a simple explanation that a layman with no prior knowledge of accounting can understand.
Lets start with the parts of a CAFR. Most of these are un-related to this particular conspiracy theory. The important part is located in the Fund Financial Statements section.
I. Intro
II Financial Section
A. Auditor’s Report
B. Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
C. Basic Financial Statements
1. Government-Wide Financial Statements
2. Fund Financial Statements
3. Notes to the Financial Statements
D. Required Supplementary Information (other than MD&A)
III. Statistical Section
The part we are interested here is the Fund Financial Statements. There are three parts, they are Governmental Funds, Proprietary Funds, and Fiduciary Funds.
Governmental Funds are funds which account for basic services, such as the police department, sanitation department, or the fire department. Proprietary Funds are those funds which operate in a manner similar to private businesses and collect fees for their services. Examples of these types of funds are the state lottery, state or government owned hospitals, or mass transit systems. Fiduciary Funds account for resources which are held by the government as a trustee for the benefit of others. Examples of these funds would be pension plans for government employees or sales tax collected by the state on behalf of local governments.
In order for government to use this money for some new purpose (some purposes suggested by conspiracy theorists are ending income tax or taking the money to start state owned banks to make low interest loans or just giving this money to everyone as some kind of dividend), the money will have to either be taken from some government service, such as the police or the hospitals; or taken pension funds, unemployment funds, or workers compensation funds. Now, the question of whether or not government is spending too much money on police departments, hospitals, or pensions is a policy discussion outside the scope of this essay. However, it is apparent that there are no hidden trillions in these financial statements.
The variation on this theory presented by Ellen Hodgson Brown was that government should take this money ,which is already allocated for specific government service, and use it to create state owned banks. Brown has not explained what is going to happen to the police officers when their paychecks bounce, or the hospitals when they have no money to keep the lights on. While some of these funds are certainly invested at very low interest, that is because these are not always long term investments. We certainly wouldn’t want the government speculating on risky ventures with money that was going to be needed to pay police salaries in the coming weeks. It is the nature of running a government or any other large entity that cash flow must be managed. While everyone would like to earn a great return on their investment, there are obviously limited opportunities to invest money at little to no risk. This problem isn’t unique to governments, everyone would like a way to earn guaranteed high interest, finding someone to pay it is the tough part.
This conspiracy theory is interesting to me, because it combines the lack of knowledge of accounting and economics that is so pervasive in our society today, with the current right wing rhetoric against government. Initially I wondered if Walter Burien was a victim or perpetrator in this scam, so I gathered some facts about him. Burien stated in a court filing that he was living in a mobile home and had only $430 to his name. He claims that he is a former commodity trader in order to present himself as an insider. However in other documents he filed with the court, he claimed that he never earned over thirty thousand dollars a year, and thus was unable to pay his child support. He apparently tried to use some aspects of another conspiracy fraud known as the “Strawman/Redemption” fraud by the FBI. Burien today claims to try to earn $15000 annually from people who have fallen for this scam and willingly donate to him so he can continue his “research”. These facts are all available on his own website, www.cafr1.com. He is also currently soliciting donations for previews of a documentary he is producing, which he plans to sell to future victims once he has enough money to complete it.
I am familiar with Ellen Hodgson Brown because I have heard her being cited as a source on some conspiracy websites related to the Federal Reserve and Jewish World Domination. She has a long history in conspiracy circles. In the last two decades she has written a number of books, all of them regarding conspiracies or alternative health.. In the past she has written books supporting homeopathy and “alternative” cancer treatments. Specifically, she wrote a book entitled, Forbidden Medicine, which was a propaganda piece for another convicted felon, Jimmy Keller. Keller ran cancer clinics in the United States until he was served with an injunction. He then opened up clinics in Mexico for a few months, until the Mexican authorities arrested him for various medical fraud charges. He later pled guilty to wire fraud in the United States. She also appears to profit financially from these conspiracies, as she owns multiple websites and publishes multiple books on these topics, as well as performs speaking engagements.
The moral of the story, there is no free lunch. Uncle Sam doesn’t have a few spare trillion he can just give us to improve our economic situation. Don’t take my word for it, though. Unlike these conspiracy hucksters, I included the links to support my statements below. If you want more information about CAFRs and how to read them, I suggest Introduction to Governmental and Not-for-Profit Accounting by Ives, Razek, and Hosch; although any governmental accounting text published in the last 10 years or so will also contain the information needed to verify this.
Here is a google search showing how this article has been spread around every banking conspiracy site known to man
http://www.google.com/search?q=How+Stagnant+Pools+of+Government+Money+Co uld+Help+Save+the+Economy&hl=en&safe=off&start=0&sa=N
Here are some sites you can go to and confirm everything I said is true.
http://www.ellenbrown.com/ http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/tumorex.html http://www.gasb.org/st/summary/gstsm34.html http://cafr1.com/Jail.html http://cafr1.com/Plea.html http://cafr1.com/DNT.html http://www.fbi.gov/majcases/fraud/fraudschemes.htm
and
Another thing that I just noticed that might be confusing to people.
The term "funds" does not mean the same as it does when referring to a "mutual fund". In terms of governmental accounting, a "fund" is actually a ledger balance, or an account balance.
This does not represent a sum of money in an account somewhere just sitting around waiting to be spent. A fund could represent the book value of all the police cars owned by that specific government entity, expressed in dollars. That is not to say that the government has access to that particular amount of money, but it is simply a method of accounting for assets.
Hopefully that makes things more clear. Let me know.
nathanhulick
05-25-10, 10:23 AM
not that it matters but two observations:
1. The Constitution forbids states from emitting bills of credit. HAHAHAHAHA. That was funny!
2. I have a retirement account, say an IRA. Instead of investing it in stocks and bonds of sound companies, one day I get the idea: I will invest it to pay off my credit card debts. That way, I won't have those debts, won't be paying, say, 15% interest.
3. I do so, and my IRA is emptied. I continue my profligate ways, and I end up penniless, and with big credit card debts.
This raid of CAFR funds is exactly like that. It is the next step towards complete bankruptcy and insolvency, which is inevitable. It is another step towards that ultimate bankruptcy of all governments when they take every piece of wealth away from the lower and middle class (the upper class will be safe of course) as is fast happening.
I seriously doubt that the people of California are going to agree that raiding state pension funds is a good idea. Also, I don't even think it is legal, as pension funds are not owned by the state, but are held in trust.
Regardless, this article is an absolute joke. It was posted a few days earlier at truthout.org
http://www.truthout.org/how-stagnant-pools-government-money-could-help-save-economy59731#comment-196345
Notice this paragraph, which does not appear in the version linked on her webpage. (Warning, put on your tinfoil cap before reading)
Burien was originally alerted to this information by Lt. Col. Gerald Klatt, who evidently died in 2004 under mysterious circumstances, adding fuel to claims of conspiracy and cover-up. Klatt was a an Air Force auditor and federal accountant, and it's not impossible that he may have gotten too close to some military stash being used for nefarious ends. But it is hard to envision how all the municipal governments hording their excess money in separate funds could be complicit in a massive government conspiracy.
thriftyandboringinohio
05-25-10, 10:52 AM
not that it matters but two observations:
1. The Constitution forbids states from emitting bills of credit. HAHAHAHAHA. That was funny!
...
Good point, ambassador grapejelly. I looked it up. It seem in Darrinton V. Bank of Alabama this issue was decided. At Wikipedia it says:
"Bills issued by state banks are not bills of credit;<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Kentucky1_8-0>[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause#cite_note-Kentucky1-8)</SUP> it is immaterial that the State is the sole stockholder of the bank..."
At first blush normal banking seems qualitatively different than a State just printing Bills of Credit, essentially money for circulation widely.
Though the small distinction may be debatable, the matter looks like settled law.
I seriously cannot believe that this nonsense is showing up here again on Itulip.
Walter Burien is either a con man or an extremely mentally deluded individual. He is also a convicted felon. The same goes for Ellen Hodgson Brown (minus the felon part). She used to write about Kevin Trudeau style 'Medical Cures They Don't Want You To Know About!!' She has written books on homeopathy and another convicted felon, Jimmy Keller, who scammed cancer patients out of millions of dollars and probably cost some of them their lives. Both of these two sick individuals make their living scamming people.
Yup, people like this who are in the mix discredit the entire area of discussion. I only refer people who are interested in the CAFR to Gerald Klatt, who was a US Gov't Auditor and appears to have no alternate agendas or dubious past.
This raid of CAFR funds is exactly like that. It is the next step towards complete bankruptcy and insolvency, which is inevitable. It is another step towards that ultimate bankruptcy of all governments when they take every piece of wealth away from the lower and middle class (the upper class will be safe of course) as is fast happening.
I agree completely; even if the $70B in California CAFR were freely available, it would still be less than the cumulative CA state deficits from 2007 to 2010 ($80B+).
Grape, I think you should read this before forming your opinion
Bank of North Dakota FAQ's (http://www.banknd.nd.gov/about_BND/pdfs/faqs.pdf)
The faith in having a state bank is not entirely clear to me. Certainly there are some potential benefits in having some competition to the TBTF banks, but there are still hundreds of small banks in California.
http://www.nd.gov/omb/docs/rev-forecast-all-2-9-09.pdf
Looking at the North Dakota budget, the BND only contributed $60M in 2008-2009. In contrast, sales taxes were $1B+, motor vehicle taxes were $128M+, individual income taxes were $640M+, corporate taxes were $250M+, and POTTF (Permanent Oil Tax Trust Fund) $115M.
So it was nice, but hardly a major contributor directly to the North Dakota budget.
I seriously doubt that the people of California are going to agree that raiding state pension funds is a good idea. Also, I don't even think it is legal, as pension funds are not owned by the state, but are held in trust.
Regardless, this article is an absolute joke. It was posted a few days earlier at truthout.org
Even disregarding the conspiracy aspect, I've already pointed out at least one major error and one incorrect assumption which the truthout comment noted. My opinion of Ellen Brown continues in its (poor) present course.
Looking at the North Dakota budget, the BND only contributed $60M in 2008-2009. In contrast, sales taxes were $1B+, motor vehicle taxes were $128M+, individual income taxes were $640M+, corporate taxes were $250M+, and POTTF (Permanent Oil Tax Trust Fund) $115M.
So it was nice, but hardly a major contributor directly to the North Dakota budget.
About the BND -- I think there are some misconceptions floating around. What does the BND do, and why is it beneficial to the state economy? As you rightly point out, its contribution to the state income was nothing much. So why is it so beneficial for North Dakota?
From the New Rules Project (http://www.newrules.org/banking/rules/bank-north-dakota)
BND was formed to "encourage and promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota."
The bank is governed by the ND Industrial Commission (http://www.state.nd.us/ndic/), consisting of the governor, attorney general and the commissioner of agriculture, all elected officials. The commission, in effect, serves as the bank's board of directors; it was formed with three members so voters could more easily monitor and influence bank policy.
In contrast to most commercial banks, Bank of North Dakota is not a member of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (FDIC). North Dakota Century Code 6-09.10 provides that all deposits in the Bank of North Dakota are guaranteed by the state.
The primary deposit base of the BND is the State of North Dakota. All state funds and funds of state institutions are deposited with the bank as required by law. Other deposits are accepted from any source- savings and checking accounts from private sources account for between 10 percent and 20 percent of the bank's deposit base. Use of the banks' earnings are at the discretion of the state legislature. As an agent of the state it can make subsidized loans to spur development; however, its profits and losses affect state tax burdens.
The bank is used as a tool for economic development. A beginning farmer revolving loan fund was originally established through a transfer of funds from the Bank of North Dakota's profits. With its' agricultural loans the bank has developed a reputation for being more lenient than other banks in pressing forclosures.
On behalf of the State of North Dakota, the BND also administers state lending programs that promote agricultural and economic development. For example, under the PACE (http://www.banknd.com/ls/ls_farmloan8.jsp) program for commercial and agricultural lending, a local bank originates a loan, the Bank of North Dakota participates at a rate determined by the community's economic strength (between 50 percent and 80 percent). The local economic development group and the BND "buy down" the interest rate to 3 points below prime. Since its inception in June 1991, the BND has participated in about $44 million in PACE loans to businesses.
The bank serves many other functions in the state. It underwrites municipal bonds for all of the political units in the state, and has been one of the leading banks in the nation in the number of student loans issued. The bank also serves as the state's "Mini Fed", clearing checks for more than 100 banks scattered around the state. Because of its' rural nature, many ND banks tend to be too small to meet the needs of borrowers. Banks, savings and loan associations and credit unions throughout the state come to the Bank of North Dakota for participation in loans.
As a result of the banks' services, it enjoys widespread support among the public and the independent banking community. No bill has been introduced in the legislature to do away with the bank since the 1920s.
The full code governing the organization of BND is found in the North Dakota Century Code (http://www.state.nd.us/lr/information/statutes/cent-code.html) Also from the BND FAQs (http://www.banknd.nd.gov/about_BND/pdfs/faqs.pdf)
Programs that would definitely help when small businesses are dying in CA because banks will not loan money.
Small Business
BND has a variety of small business programs available. Listed below is a short summary of each.
o Business Development Loan Program
The Business Development Loan Program assists new and existing businesses in obtaining loans that would have a higher degree of risk than would normally be acceptable to a lending institution.
o Beginning Entrepreneur Loan Guarantee Program
This program assists in business start-up financing by providing a financial institution with an 85% guaranty of a loan not to exceed $100,000.
.
.
.
New Venture Capital Program
Administered by the North Dakota Development Fund, the New Venture Capital Program through the BND is an innovative financial program that provides flexible financing through debt and equity investments for new or expanding businesses in the state of North Dakota. BND can fund rapidly growing companies which require equity funding.
All in all, establishing a state bank
1) would not be a raid on CAFR funds
2) will not relieve any IMMEDIATE budgetary pressures
3) Will not take away the imperative for prudence in state budgeting
4) It would likely help small businesses start and survive.
5) It would enable municipalities to access funds by helping underwrite bonds
Of course the banking model would not be identical to that of the BND, though there may be similarities.
ThePythonicCow
05-25-10, 01:03 PM
Walter Burien is either a con man or an extremely mentally deluded individual. He is also a convicted felon. The same goes for Ellen Hodgson Brown (minus the felon part). She used to write about Kevin Trudeau style 'Medical Cures They Don't Want You To Know About!!' She has written books on homeopathy and another convicted felon, Jimmy Keller, who scammed cancer patients out of millions of dollars and probably cost some of them their lives. Both of these two sick individuals make their living scamming people.You're picking up a few select facts, blending them with negative adjectives, and including on an unrelated subject (cancer treatments and medical cures) which we are in no position here to evaluate adequately. I do not find such trash talking useful. I probably disagree with your implications regarding medical treatments, but will not enter into that discussion here.
I post this response primarily to raise a red flag for others to exercise due diligence in reading your post.
nathanhulick
05-25-10, 02:26 PM
You're picking up a few select facts, blending them with negative adjectives, and including on an unrelated subject (cancer treatments and medical cures) which we are in no position here to evaluate adequately. I do not find such trash talking useful. I probably disagree with your implications regarding medical treatments, but will not enter into that discussion here.
I post this response primarily to raise a red flag for others to exercise due diligence in reading your post.
A few select facts? The point is that the people who are spreading this nonsense are professional hucksters. They make a living passing off this kind of garbage. I included the links to the reddit article that guy wrote, which has links supporting everything he said. I checked his links and the facts checked out.
Would you say the same thing if the conversation was about Bernie Madoff? I'm sure he is probably a peach of a guy when he isnt robbing people blind, but if someone was posting that he was a criminal, and detailed the facts explaining why, would you say that person was " picking up a few select facts"?
Go do your own research and see if Ellen Hodgson Brown didnt write a book about "cancer cures" that was nothing more than a fluff piece on a guy who was convicted by the US government and went to prison.
Don't believe me, take a look
http://www.romingerlegal.com/fifthcircuit/opinions/92-07030.CR0.wpd.html
James Gordon Keller was convicted in September 1991, of one
count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371, and ten counts of aiding and abetting the commission of wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2. The government
presented evidence that Keller and several associates created a
scheme to obtain money from cancer patients and their families by
promising them, by way of interstate telephone conversations, an
effective treatment and cure for their cancer.
Do a google search for Tumorx, and you can read all about it. The author of this piece helped Jimmy Keller defraud cancer patients. He stole their money and people died of cancer that might have been treated if they went to an actual doctor instead of that quack. You really think that's hard to evaluate?
Your response is typical from the conspiracy crowd. You can't refute any of the facts presented, so you complain that pointing out someone is a crook and documenting it with facts is "trash talking".
I dare you to do your own research into this CAFR nonsense and then come back and talk to me about it. The fact is Ellen Brown wouldnt know a financial statement from a lottery ticket. Go over to reddit and argue with that guy who posted this stuff in the first place. I checked his links, and his facts checked out from what I could tell. Until then, maybe you should think about the type of people you are defending here. Maybe you would feel different if you had a dying family member scammed out of the last few months of their life by these criminals.
nathanhulick
05-25-10, 02:30 PM
About the BND -- I think there are some misconceptions floating around. What does the BND do, and why is it beneficial to the state economy? As you rightly point out, its contribution to the state income was nothing much. So why is it so beneficial for North Dakota?
From the New Rules Project (http://www.newrules.org/banking/rules/bank-north-dakota)
Also from the BND FAQs (http://www.banknd.nd.gov/about_BND/pdfs/faqs.pdf)
Programs that would definitely help when small businesses are dying in CA because banks will not loan money.
All in all, establishing a state bank
1) would not be a raid on CAFR funds
2) will not relieve any IMMEDIATE budgetary pressures
3) Will not take away the imperative for prudence in state budgeting
4) It would likely help small businesses start and survive.
5) It would enable municipalities to access funds by helping underwrite bonds
Of course the banking model would not be identical to that of the BND, though there may be similarities.
Whether or not starting a state bank is a good idea is something completely different from the assertion that government has all this money just sitting around.
Sure, governments could start a state bank, but they would need money to do it, and selling police cars and hospitals isn't the smart way to fund it.
Also, why stop at banks? We could have government oil companies, grocery stores, etc. If you think government would do a better job running a bank, whats different about a grocery store?
nathanhulick
05-25-10, 02:34 PM
Yup, people like this who are in the mix discredit the entire area of discussion. I only refer people who are interested in the CAFR to Gerald Klatt, who was a US Gov't Auditor and appears to have no alternate agendas or dubious past.
I am sorry, but perhaps it wasnt clear earlier. There is no CAFR money laying around. Klatt (who may or may not even exist, I havent seen any evidence of him other than Burien's website) is just as crazy as Burien. For all I know he is a figment of Burien's imagination.
Do you understand that a CAFR is showing all government assets? Let me cut and paste the part that explains how to read a CAFR
The part we are interested here is the Fund Financial Statements. There are three parts, they are Governmental Funds, Proprietary Funds, and Fiduciary Funds.
Governmental Funds are funds which account for basic services, such as the police department, sanitation department, or the fire department. Proprietary Funds are those funds which operate in a manner similar to private businesses and collect fees for their services. Examples of these types of funds are the state lottery, state or government owned hospitals, or mass transit systems. Fiduciary Funds account for resources which are held by the government as a trustee for the benefit of others. Examples of these funds would be pension plans for government employees or sales tax collected by the state on behalf of local governments.
In order for government to use this money for some new purpose (some purposes suggested by conspiracy theorists are ending income tax or taking the money to start state owned banks to make low interest loans or just giving this money to everyone as some kind of dividend), the money will have to either be taken from some government service, such as the police or the hospitals; or taken pension funds, unemployment funds, or workers compensation funds. Now, the question of whether or not government is spending too much money on police departments, hospitals, or pensions is a policy discussion outside the scope of this essay. However, it is apparent that there are no hidden trillions in these financial statements.
Also
The term "funds" does not mean the same as it does when referring to a "mutual fund". In terms of governmental accounting, a "fund" is actually a ledger balance, or an account balance.
This does not represent a sum of money in an account somewhere just sitting around waiting to be spent. A fund could represent the book value of all the police cars owned by that specific government entity, expressed in dollars. That is not to say that the government has access to that particular amount of money, but it is simply a method of accounting for assets.
ThePythonicCow
05-25-10, 04:32 PM
Your response is typical from the conspiracy crowd. Someday I really, really have to add a tin foil hat to my cow avatar.
You're picking up a few select facts, blending them with negative adjectives, and including on an unrelated subject (cancer treatments and medical cures) which we are in no position here to evaluate adequately. I do not find such trash talking useful. I probably disagree with your implications regarding medical treatments, but will not enter into that discussion here.
I post this response primarily to raise a red flag for others to exercise due diligence in reading your post.
He wants full and independent audits, that's certainly crazy.
http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m5d24-CAFR-UC-budget-fully-funded-with-onefifth-of-one-percent-of-state-of-CA-investments (http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2010m5d24-CAFR-UC-budget-fully-funded-with-onefifth-of-one-percent-of-state-of-CA-investments)
I am sorry, but perhaps it wasnt clear earlier. There is no CAFR money laying around. Klatt (who may or may not even exist, I havent seen any evidence of him other than Burien's website) is just as crazy as Burien. For all I know he is a figment of Burien's imagination.
Do you understand that a CAFR is showing all government assets? Let me cut and paste the part that explains how to read a CAFR
I don't really get the response at all.
The CAFR is simply an audited financial statement published once per year by every public bureaucracy in the country, that's all. I never said about using the funds represented inthe financials for any particular purpose.
Further, since his passing I have corresponded with Gerald Klatt's son on a couple of occasions, and given the work on his website and my correspondence I have no reason to doubt Klatt's work, which is reflected on his website, which I posted a link to above.
As far as Burien and Brown, I've never followed them because I've never seen them as credible, and I've always been concerned that they would taint Klatt's work, which appears to be exactly what is happening.
ThePythonicCow
05-25-10, 04:58 PM
He wants full and independent audits, that's certainly crazy. I was responding to a post by nathanhulick that blasphemed Burien, Brown and Keller with various insults and allegations, some of them unrelated to the topic of this thread. Such posts distract from a sensible discussion of the topic at hand ... as evidenced by several of the last few posts on this thread.
I don't know why nathanhulick headed off into the weeds, nor do I really care. I've done as much myself (as reggie may recall, involving someone named Bill Joy ;)) so I'd be a bit hypocritical to get totally bent out of shape about it. But I do call B.S., and I do encourage anyone who has something sensible to say on this threads topic to ignore the last several posts from myself and nathanhulick.
tpc, d-mack was backing you up on that -- I don't think NH read the Elaine Brown article -- where she confirmed with the various Government finance officers about the existence of these funds.
These funds are in various Wall Street institutions. Consider the impact on those very same institutions if that money was to migrate to a state owned bank -- such as North Dakota -- where by law, all state revenues have to be banked at BND.
$15B would capitalize a California state bank at the same level that BND is capitalized at. This would allow a "Bank of the State of California" to have assets of about $200B -- which would be an injection into the economy of California -- if the direct contributions match BND contributions, that would be a direct revenue of about $3B per year.
If we allow for the difference in CPI, then the required capitalization would be about $25B, and assets of around $350B. Conservatively, the $350B injection into the California economy should see tax revenues rise, because of the multiplier effect.
The difference between a private bank and a public bank lies in its charter. For example for BND
Bank of North Dakota (BND) was charged with the mission of "promoting agriculture, commerce and industry" in North Dakota. It was never intended for BND to compete with or replace existing banks. Instead, Bank of North Dakota was created to partner with other financial institutions and assist them in meeting the needs of the citizens of North Dakota.
The prime motive of a private bank is to produce profits for its shareholders. That is not the motive of a state bank, as can be seen above.
Thus in the current economy, when the private banks have stopped lending to small businesses, and sharply curtailed lending overall, that is not the case in North Dakota. BND in partnership with "small" banks continues to facilitate lending to North Dakota businesses (see BND FAQs)
nathanhulick
05-25-10, 08:08 PM
I don't really get the response at all.
The CAFR is simply an audited financial statement published once per year by every public bureaucracy in the country, that's all. I never said about using the funds represented inthe financials for any particular purpose.
Further, since his passing I have corresponded with Gerald Klatt's son on a couple of occasions, and given the work on his website and my correspondence I have no reason to doubt Klatt's work, which is reflected on his website, which I posted a link to above.
As far as Burien and Brown, I've never followed them because I've never seen them as credible, and I've always been concerned that they would taint Klatt's work, which appears to be exactly what is happening.
I took a look at Klatt's site. Apparently he claims $600 billion dollars that government holds. This is a MUCH smaller number than Burien and Brown's pie-in-the-sky hundreds of trillions.
Unfortunately, he is also wrong, although at least he seemed to understand more about how to read the financials than the other two. The numbers that he includes are not counting capital assets or fiduciary funds, but they are still counting funds that are used for things like police, fire, mass transit, hospitals, etc. The idea that every government at every level should run without a single penny in emergency money is crazy.
A great example is Katrina. Under Klatt's proposal, the police, fire department, bus system, and hospitals would not have been able to pay the employees. The first paycheck with overtime on it would have wiped out their cash, and all those people would be working for free.
If you want to make the argument that government spends too much money, or that government has too much cash sitting in their account, that's one thing, but to add up all the bank accounts of every government agency and divide it by the population and then determine that the government owes everybody two grand is asinine. Is it really possible that every single police department, fire department, city bus service, motor pool, road crew, etc. all have too much cash in their account? Obviously not. Go find one specific police department that you think has too much money in their account. Then find out why, specifically they have that amount.
The truth is, there are already people who do this. You think these government entities are not audited? You think that government employees do not have to define specifically why they have X amount of dollars left over to the bean counters? If you have really been researching this for years, as you claim, you would have interviewed some of these auditors and realized that this is conspiracy nonsense.
nathanhulick
05-25-10, 08:15 PM
He wants full and independent audits, that's certainly crazy.
http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m5d24-CAFR-UC-budget-fully-funded-with-onefifth-of-one-percent-of-state-of-CA-investments (http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2010m5d24-CAFR-UC-budget-fully-funded-with-onefifth-of-one-percent-of-state-of-CA-investments)
It certainly is crazy, considered there already are full, independent audits. They are actually done by professional auditors, who went to school and trained so they actually could understand what they are talking about.
Somehow, every single one of the tens of thousands of auditors in this country seemed to have missed the fact that the government is secretly hiding all this money from us. Luckily, people like Walter Burien and Carl Herman are on the job. Neither of them ever took an accounting class, and they didn't bother to look at any of the source documents, just the audited statements, but they were able to find trillions of dollars in these financial statements while they were cruising the internet.
I have some very nice bridges for sale if you are interested.
Thus in the current economy, when the private banks have stopped lending to small businesses, and sharply curtailed lending overall, that is not the case in North Dakota. BND in partnership with "small" banks continues to facilitate lending to North Dakota businesses (see BND FAQs)
Let's first be clear then that the state of North Dakota state finances has little or nothing to do with the Bank of North Dakota. Between oil, natural gas, minerals, and what not, the direct contribution of higher energy prices has very much been a bigger factor than any possible state bank's effect.
Having said that, I don't disagree per se that having a state bank is a bad thing. However, I would note that just because there is a state bank, doesn't mean that the exact same problem faced by the small private banks in California would not have been faced by a state bank in California.
North Dakota, for example, has a much higher property tax than California: the average across the state is 1.8% - and it is assessed yearly as far as I can tell.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Grand-Forks-North-Dakota.html
http://www.ci.fargo.nd.us/Residential/PropertyTaxes/
Net net, North Dakota did not experience the property tax bubble like in California - and similarly the BND has not experienced the effects of a burst property bubble on residential and commercial real estate loan failure rates.
It is precisely this failed previous lending to businesses and individuals which is preventing lending by those same (failing) small banks now.
The other problem to keep in mind is if, on the other hand, there is any type of favoritism given the to the state bank, that this also is a potential factor in negative growth effect.
After all, if the Fed and the Treasury can be irresponsible to the entire United States, why then is a state bank immune to the same behavior at a state level?
Just think of all the plum jobs a governor or legislature could fill in a state bank.
nathanhulick
05-25-10, 08:17 PM
I was responding to a post by nathanhulick that blasphemed Burien, Brown and Keller with various insults and allegations, some of them unrelated to the topic of this thread. Such posts distract from a sensible discussion of the topic at hand ... as evidenced by several of the last few posts on this thread.
I don't know why nathanhulick headed off into the weeds, nor do I really care. I've done as much myself (as reggie may recall, involving someone named Bill Joy ;)) so I'd be a bit hypocritical to get totally bent out of shape about it. But I do call B.S., and I do encourage anyone who has something sensible to say on this threads topic to ignore the last several posts from myself and nathanhulick.
Blasphemed? Didn't know you worshipped these guys...
Regardless, as I have said, and as the guy who posted the writeup on that other site said, go ahead and refute any of the facts if you can.
Nobody has yet. I would be happy to find out that I am completely wrong and Uncle Sam has all this money available he can give me. I'd also like a Ferrari and a date with Megan Fox....
ThePythonicCow
05-25-10, 08:23 PM
tpc, d-mack was backing you up on that -- Ah - good. I was unsure what d-mack meant.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.