Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape I encourage you to monitor this. Keep telling yourself we can borrow forever, print money out of thin air, and spend our way out of debt.
Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape It's gotta be less than that. I sent them some money just a few days ago.
Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape Nope, sorry Nigel! Your money came to me! I got a whopping $130 tax refund!
Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape The Patriot Act, TSA, and DHS were all things that were born out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and generally were supported at the time they were introduced in the name of national security. They have since morphed into more of a goverment agency functioning less for national security and more for domestic policy and politics (much like the EPA likes to make law itself now). On the enemy combatant issue, you have a situation where the "enemy" who has declared war on the U.S. is not exactly a party to or will agree to abide by Geneva Convention rules. So you're kind of in an odd limbo on how to treat these guys (the non-citizens). I think Bush screwed up the Iraq issue and a few others. I'll also remind folks that no one was complaining much about the "failed policies of George Bush" in 2006 & 2007.
Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape In order to allay any fears about the Patriot Act or any other Act that the current administration might feel necessary, I'd like to opine on the matter in order to impart my vast knowledge based on my federal law enforcement career which was gained over a 30 year period. 1. The USG is totally f'd up. 2. There is no vast conspiracy to deprive American residents of their Constitutional rights. 3. When looking into what you might believe is a conspiracy - never discount the possibility that it might have been the result of incompetence. 4. Only those who have actually been affected by the Patriot Act and can delineate what affected them should complain. 5. For your further enlightenment, I spent 30 years in one of the forerunner agencies to DHS. Everyone that I know who was merged into that agency feels it was a massive mistake. 6. TSA is merely a federalization of a program which had been in effect since at least 1974 when pre-boarding security was required at airports. As far as I'm concerned - I haven't lost any of my rights or freedoms since 9-11-2001. I can call the current Presidential incumbent anything I wish (and frequently do). In fact - the only restrictions that I have encountered since 9-11 are in this forum - where individuals who are not associated with the USG (at least I don't think they are) have the absolute right to censor things that I chose to write and censure me with the use of cards. My credentials are as follows: 1. Circa 1960 - Subject of the Queen (memo to Dan Loney - this is not a gay taunt) 2. Circa late 60's - US Army draftee - Vietnam 3. Circa 70's-2000 - One of them, Special Agent US Customs 4. Circa 2001-Now - Retired USG (keep paying those taxes to fund my retirement) doing whatever I damn well please. p.s If you haven't tried Marmite - you don't know what you're missing
Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape Wow! Talk about Red State/Blue State. We must have jobs, houses, friends and relatives in Red Circle/Blue Circle. I'm really not overstating this when I say that almost everyone I ever encountered in my normal daily life was STRONGLY complaining about Bush from the day he was elected. By 2006 a large majority of my acquaintances would have voted for the proverbial "Yellow Dog." IMO (and I'm not trying to start a debate on the relative merits of various presidents) I'm just saying...Bush Deuce was far and away the worst president in my lifetime, and I was born in the Eisenhower administration. I believe he will historically rank in the bottom 10% of all American Presidents. His administration was unintelligent, overly dogmatic, and generally mean spirited.
Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape See, now THIS pisses me off! You're one of those lazy, fat ass Government workers who sat around doing nothing for 30 years and now MY tax dollars are paying to wrap your buttocks in "rich Corinthian leather." My wealth is being redistributed upward! And worse! You're not even a "real" American! Frigging Obama and his Socialist schemes!
Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape this is incorrect. people like me who take the constitution seriously were outraged then when bush started ripping it up and outraged now that obama has almost finished shredding it. there is nothing in the federalist papers, continental congress ledger, poor richards almanac, declaration of independence, constitution, bill of rights, etc. that support any of the statist aggression on our civil liberties. in fact, said writing, and the founders who wrote them, argued vehemently against broad government power in the name of security or safety. in the inmortal words of Franklin "those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserver neither" or jefferson when speaking to stuart " I would rather be exposed to the inconviencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small degree of it"
AWWWW YEAHH Ron Paul at University of Houston Friday, April 27, 2012, 7:00pm RSVP Here! Like, Share, and Invite All Friends http://www.facebook.com/events/392396787447878/
Re: Dynamo Stadium Episode II: The Stadium Takes Shape I was referring to the economy. Obama has spent the better part of 3 years blaming the economy on Bush
Yeah, I think we should give Metro more money: www.chron.com/opinion/king/article/King-General-mobility-payments-pose-dilemma-for-3530103.php
BTW, as I suspected a few years ago when the Houston Harris County Sports Authority interjected itself into the Dynamo Stadium deal, they got involved only to help their balance sheet by putting BBVA Compass Stadium on their books as an asset but without backing any of the debt in the stadium. See the below financial statements: http://emma.msrb.org/EA538529-EA419652-EA816622.pdf On page 7 they show the net financial position and note at the bottom of the page the donation of BBVA Compass Stadium to the Authority at a value of $82.7 million, which is why the net position is healthier than it was.
I love how the asset is listed as revenue in the balance sheet. Does this mean if I buy something at a discount I can record the cist but also record the retail price as revenue? Like reams of paper ?
I think it has to do with some goofy governmental accounting standards. They show it as revenue on a consolidated activity report which looks like a cross between cash flow statement and a balance sheet report. There is a also a "statement of activity" report where they show it as a "general revenue". Capital contributions don't go there for most businesses. Hell, a quick glance shows they almost doubled revenues in 2012 from 2011 - what debt service and revenue problems????? Oh yeah, all of the increase was in a donation of a capital asset.
I think I follow you. If I I do, then tell me how to handle acquiring an asset for below market value? If I spent .50 to get something that is clearly 1.00 in value as an asset, how do I account for it and keep balanced books without booking some revenue?
You don't put COGS in the revenue line. If you procure a volume discount on office supplies you don't book the difference as revenue. Which is essentially what they have done with market value as revenue and cost line item of zero. Nowhere but government accounting would I see a depreciable asset listed as revenue at its market value. I suppose as WS pointed out they categorize it as a capital gift...but that gives tax payers a slanted view of real cost versus revenue and not what you would see in real world on an income sheet as revenue. Its an asset with different depreciation and amortization guidelines...not a revenue line item. Furthermore , as an asset it has no realized gain to be listed as revenue unless they sell it. To put it another way...assets would be in a balance sheet offset by liabilities and equity exposure. An income statement shows revenue streams offset by COGS. Then there is a cash flow statement. There is a reason they are separate because you can't offset COGS with an asset. It implies incoming benefit and would impact cash flow...but there is really no current or future gain to an asset unless it is liquidated.
Ok. 1. What are we talking about? 2. Acquisition of an asset can't be compared to acquisition of supplies (or inventory) so I don't follow your statements on that point. 3. You didn't answer my question. If I'm given a $1 bill in exchange for $.50, I now have a $1 asset, a .50 expense, don't I need to show .50 in revenue. I'm not sure who'se financials your referring to but I'm trying to understand your statements.
1. We are talking about them reporting an asset found on a balance sheet as an income statement line item. In the rest of the world it would not show on an income statement because it would skew operating income. It is misleading because if you look at bottom line without knowing it was a capital acquisition you get the impression they had more positive cash flow than possible. 2. I agree which is why assets are not reported on an income statement as a revenue item. But they apparently do. *sorry made a bit of a leap with my comment. By reporting asset as revenue they ARE comparing it to COGS in normal reporting as those two offset each other on an income statement. 3. It is reported on the balance sheet as a current asset of 1.00 and either a current or not current liability of .50. Your asset gain could show on your cash flow but would never show as a revenue item. (I assume your example is of an asset and not a COGS. If it was a COGS you would never report the difference it would be a cost offset by whatever revenue you gained from its purchase. )
Ok, now I'm still not arguing with you. I don't think you are right or wrong since I'm still trying to understand. 1. Who is "them"? What is the asset? 3. Cash is an asset. That is why I picked it form,y example. What is the nature of the liability you want me to book? Who do I owe this liability to? I don't get it. The $1 is free and clear.
1. OK. Sports Authority...link from last page. They listed the value of BBVA the asset as a revenue stream. 2. Cash is handled slightly different because you typically are not buying a dollar at a profit at the same time (minus FX). But as an asset, the .50 would show as a one time charge on the balance sheet in year one offsetting your one dollar assert. In year two you would have the dollar with no attached liability unless you are depreciating the asset. You would not show the difference as revenue as there is a different impact on cash flow between owning something worth money and actually making money. I made a quick comment because I don't like that sort of lazy/ misleading reporting from public entities. Someone interested in the state of the sports authority without knowledge of the BBVA transfer is going to see a very misleading net number. I just think public agencies should at least loosely follow reporting guidelines that other public agencies impose and enforce on the rest of the country.
Got it. Thanks. I can't find the link. Might be by a blocked poster. Without saying I think your wrong, I'd be surprised if the Sports Authority was not following GASB standards.
Not sure how I am wrong. Didn't say they were not following GASB standards in repotting it as a capital gift. I think it is shit they can report it that way when the rest are bound by real standards.