Talk:Annual comprehensive financial report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questions[edit]

I cleaned up this mess a bit. Unfortunately, government and financial statements are not interchangeable, and criminals like Burien prey on conspiracy junkies by peddling this nonsense. Burien is a convicted felon who hasnt worked in years, but makes his living by collecting "donations" from people who he has convinced are helping to uncover the world's largest financial conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.190.92 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Bubien/Burien but any of us are not very far from being convicted felons with 200,000 laws to supposedly not be ignorant of any of which that we are unaware of or in violation of could be used to target us via selective prosecution, so being convicted of some felony does not invalidate the concept or the information associated no? It is like saying G. Gordon Liddy's wife owns guns there fore any opionion Liddy has about his wife's ammo is invalid since he was convicted from "Watergate". WHAT ABOUT GERALD R. KLATT?(deceased) Ex AIRFORCE ACCOUNTANT; don't mention him for ANY reason just run down the topic and try to associated it with criminals? CAFRman.com Government & Financial Statements are not interchangeable ? When government owns the corporation(s) that they set up & in the case of a CITY inc. the Councilmen/women are the board of directors of that corporation & the City pays "fees" to that corporation & borrows bonds from that corporation, well, how is that not a shell game & a way to fein debt & hide equity assets ? Research the fuss over the Kentucky League of Cities & Kentucky Association of Counties. Kentucky did not invent that concept. Not to run down Kentucky but by the time it is being done in KY others may have been doing it for over a decade.

How can a wiki editor tag this as needing a expert to rewrite the article IF they are expert enough to "know" it needs a rewrite they are expert enough to rewrite it & not just tag and run? Wreaks of a attempt to discredit a legit topic since deletion for yet a third time would be all too obvious that someone has the cover up agenda?

What is NCGA? there is not a link or a expansion of the abbreviation, sounds like more ["fed speak"] that needs a "NPOV" translation so that the average human can comprehend something of this important topic given all the financial shell games going on in this fiat scrip blip "free trade" economy.147.133.206.110

I added back the category section and the links that were on the "Government financial report" article that is now deleted. Other web page sites that cashe or rehash wiki articles will have this info on them from their snapshots so it cannot be made to go down "Orwell's Memory Hole that easily. 209.42.182.52 (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding so much to this article but the punctuation and phrasing needs work as there are several run on and long sentences, I appreciate the effort to preserve the basic framework of the article as I have tried to do when I have revised these sections, from the original deleted "Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports" and the sequel "Government Financial Reports" all of this article name game/shell game just seems like censorship attempts; KEEP UP THE RESEARCH ! 147.133.206.110 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Some one injected this issue of Government Financial reports and Corporate Financial reports, the original article only dealt with governmental financial reports, UNLESS you are claiming that government is a mere corporation or that a corporation is presenting itself in place of government (defacto vs dejure) (see the various claims about the "Clearfield Doctrine" opinion on that issue) Given all the resistance to such a important topic that raises the prospect government having more investment income than all the people's income (and taxes) combined, thus making the people less relevant or important to the artificial entity of government, people become mere human resources to be exploited. The various funds to manipulate currency like Regan's "operation Stillwell" need a article linked here. Seems entirely relevant that operations which make a profit using public funds even if secrecy has been breached are on topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.174.225 (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality check required[edit]

This article appears to be written largely by or from the point of view from political activist Walter J. Burien (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. Burien Jr.) and needs revision.  Sandstein  06:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is not true from my reading of it, it is a suppressed topic as many of the media gets or did get the state and city's CAFR reports or were on the mailing lists, so there seems to be a nearly complete blackout of this book-keeping practice. Hints of the vast off the budget holdings of Government show up in news articles mentioned in passing like the Univ. Of Kentucky CHA health stock sale or the Orange county Calf, Derivatives loss, or the Governor Martha Lane Collins deals to get Toyota in Kentucky (Tax breaks and blocks of stock but where do the dividends go?) Research "Dark Pools of Liquidity" & the President's Working Group on Money and Markets (nick named the "plunge protection team" ) Look for articles on the hundreds of companies the CIA investment arm is holding stock in, including Google. The issue is commonly called a soap box issue but it is likely due to a lack of understanding of the issue of "Corporatism" cronyism & market manipulation. Since the issue has gained some scant attention in alternative media apparently some divisions of government have taken to financing their own bond issues to hide surplus liquidity. Jessie Ventura really did issue checks back from a fraction of the funds he found while in office as Governor of Minnesota.
not my net connection so signed anon
75.90.230.225 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed what I believe to be the most egregious cases of unverifiable, as well as any biased, assertions. Some were reworded but several had to be abandoned. While I am generally sympathetic to the claims made and opinions and sentiments expressed, this is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy theory aggregator or an editorial column. Since I could not find any verifiable, notable references for the Jesse Ventura claims within the first 1,000 results from Google, I'm not comfortable leaving it in thus I removed it. Please add it back if you can find a proper reference. As far as I can tell, there are no patently unverifiable or POV statements left. This is not to say that I have properly referenced every statement but I'm relatively certain that the there is no patently false information (the article is better off than it was, feel free to further reference or remove material). I plan to do more work on this article another day.
While I do not claim to be an "expert", I do posses a fair amount of knowledge on this subject and am confident that the major relevant topics are adequately covered that the facts listed are accurate. I have corrected several statements, sourced §History and generally re-worked several other sections.
If no one expresses any further concerns about the general POV or makes claims against specific statements by the end of May, I plan to remove the 'POV-check' tag at that time. If no one expresses any further concerns about the quality of the treatment of the subject by the end of May, I plan to remove the 'Expert-subject' tag at that time.
I will leave the 'Original research' tag. Without all claims being properly referenced, I don't think it should be removed.
 Jim Reed (Talk)  02:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over ten days and no one who has had any prior interest in this article has listed an objection to the removal of the 'POV-check' and 'Expert-subject' tags. I plan to remove them tomorrow if no one has anything further to add to the discussion in this regard.  Jim Reed (Talk)  20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the 'POV-check' and 'Expert-subject' tags. The 'Original research' tag has been left because there are claims that are not properly referenced.  Jim Reed (Talk)  03:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent" developments[edit]

I removed the section, because it was not salvageable as it stood. In addition to being a puff piece for conspiracy theory, and having a massive duplication, the three examples were very poor, one being irrelevant completely, one having 2010 quote backed up by a 2008 video and a 2009 party report. As I understand it, a CAFR will include, for example, pension funds, land and building assets of the associated organizations, and so forth. http://cafr1.com/ gives as an example of "government profiting" the CAFR of the New York federal employees pension fund.

It also says


And so on and so forth.

This is all fringe, self-pub stuff, but should be covered in a non-undue way. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

GFOA[edit]

Presents a slightly different take on the CAFR here. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Comprehensive annual financial report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annual_comprehensive_financial_report&oldid=1198778784"