The Biggest Game In town- You should probably watch this soon

Originally posted by reasoner
Why the the NWO allow such wide access to CAFR? Who makes them publish a smoking gun?



[edit on 27-2-2009 by reasoner]

Thats the one thing I just couldnt get my head around. They setup this elaborate system and black out everything about the shadow investment via the major media and papers and all the money being in the trillions just keep piling up despite our "recession" that is in all honesty a FULL BLOWN Depression just starting to rear its ugly head, and why would they leave the back door open for some clever individual to sneak in? I don't know, not a clue but I will say this, even to get the masses aware of this, its going to take a massive effort. The general public is so apathetic and uninformed....It could be the meaning of life we were talking about being revealed, if you had to watch a two hour video about it to find out you might be suprised how many would just ignore it.....

Makes it easy to see where black op money can come from

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx

Originally posted by reasoner
Why the the NWO allow such wide access to CAFR? Who makes them publish a smoking gun?

Thats the one thing I just couldnt get my head around.

Yeah, interesting eh? The federal government in 1981 began requiring state and local governments to compile and publish CAFRs, as it does itself. Even back then they printed up and mailed out many copies to anybody who wanted them (watch the video); today many (most?) are available on the web. Every auditor, accountant and bookkeeper in the country can examine them freely, along with independent journalists. These are the primary and trusted source for the expose powering this thread.

I have two theories. One is that the NWO was forced by alien powers back in NWO to publish these documents so that somebody might notice; but in nearly three decades only one brilliant and courageous un-corrupted citizen has ever managed to read them and expose the fraud. (The Aliens must be pretty disappointed in us). Pretty much all levels of government must be in on this, of all political parties, as well as all corporate and independent media.

The other is that the *meaning* of the figures is being misrepresented in the video, and that most accountants etc actually do understand the budgets better than he wants us to think. But that would be crazy talk! Obviously this man is the only un-coopted citizen in the last generation who was able to understand what is there in plain sight in 54,000 CAFR reports every year. The hundreds of thousands of others (of all political stripes) who pour over budgets in detail are all either stupid, mortally afraid, or being paid off.

Thanks heavens there is one person who can pierce this fog! And now we can all follow him and make him our guru in these matters.

reasoner

Hmm I doubt NO ONE who knows about this stuff thinks its legal....unless like said above it is and we don't understand it as well as we should and everything is perfectly fine and Burien is just overreacting and not making sense....Not so likely to me.
I still dont know what to make of it other than a blatant deception that was at least engineered as legitimate laundering scheme (if ever one existed right?) with what was originally (not sure if it continues to be at our expense) paid for with our effort and finance despite times of unquestionable financial desperation among the people....
Feels like a systematic take down of the economic grid and the Gov't is holding the cavalry in reserve indefinitely.

In a sense Burien is saying America, while operating under the guise of free market capitalism, is, and has been for many years, a state monopoly hidden in plain view. He's describing Big Government as a voracious black hole cloaking it's own massiveness with the Land of the Free fast disappearing beyond the event horizon.

He cites some examples:-

...just one CAFR out of 84,000 - the New York State Retirement Fund owns 44 Million shares in Microsoft - and that's just one shareholding of one CAFR. Now when you look at the composite totals, Microsoft is about 83% owned by composite government... When you have a corporation about 83% owned by government... I wouldn't call it a public corporation, I'd call it Russia's wild dream come true.

The Fortune 500 Companies: Exon, Mobile, all of them, are between 75-85% owned by composite government funds.

The entire private sector's net worth right now, in investment wealth is INSIGNIFICANT in comparison to the government takeover of the investment arena. Government took over the equities market, they took over the stock market, they took over the insurance industries, they took over the banking industries, for high investment.

As he says, although we hear in the MSM about government budget reports, when do they mention CAFRs? Why don't they figure in the financial editorials discussing the meltdown?

Another crucial point he makes:

they've created their own statutes to separate their profit centres from the budgetary basis... if it was tax income they had a responsibility to report to the public where they spent their tax income. If it was profit from investments, or profits from enterprise operations, they figured they did that on their own, they didn't have any accountability to the public whatsoever. [He goes on to describe how they do this]

I advise anyone jumping into this thread to watch some of the videos posted earlier and listen to what he is saying.

I think the reason that they are publishing this stuff is that it's a good way to cover your tracks.

Hear me out

If you ever DID get caught with stuff like this you can say, "We didn't lie to you, it's been there the entire time and you just didn't care to look"

It's a childlike mentality for childlike people. If you think of the government as a small child you'll understand its behavior much better.

If anybody is serious in trying to understand this video, my first hint is to be VERY clear about the distinction between (accumuated multiyear) wealth and (per year) income. People confuse these frequently. For example, you may read that the wealthiest 5% of people in this country own X% of its wealth, or you might hear that the 5% who have the most income receive Y% of the total income - those are two distinct things but people confuse them constantly.

He tends to constantly mix figures about wealth (like accumulated investments, largely pension funds to offset long term pension liabilities) with annual revenue. He refers to these as distinct at times, and then compares apples to oranges at other times, depending on which serves his purpose. Watch out for that and for EVERY figure he gives, ask yourself which kind it is. That won't invalidate every point he makes (nor is that my intention), but you will see that he plays fast and loose with the numbers in order to make his points (which makes me cautious about implicitly trusting other assertions he makes which are harder to check).

If you had been saving money all your life in order to retire today at age 65, without social security or medicare or any other outside pension, how much would you feel you needed to have saved to have a comfortable but not extravagant retirement, including medical care in your old age? Now suppose you had saved that much, and somebody compared your savings to your annual income last year, and implied that you had been hiding income all those years to pretending that you needed your raises. This is NOT an exact analogy (don't bother picking apart details), but it illustrates that investments to offset long term liabilities SHOULD dwarf one year's income and are not inherently a sign of something shady. I'm more worried more about the govenments with low ratios than the higher ones.

There are legitimate concerns about the size of pension funds held by governments. He suggests they are far larger than needed; others say we are facing a retirement crisis when the boomers retire because those governments don't have large enough investments to cover it. Given that those investments have shrunk greatly in the last six months, I suspect the latter group has more ammunition currently. I'm more worried about the trillions of dollars of local/state/federal government liabilities than about the trillions of dollars of not-yet-liquidated assets.

A lot of the wealth held by composite government has vanished in the last six months; alas the pension liabilities didn't shrink in time with the investments.

One thing that's funny is the idea that government will own everything soon so they won't need us. Um, we need to study basic economics to see what "wealth" is. It's not some pile of gold somewhere with fixed value, independent of humans. There is no wealth without us. How valuable is owning vast tracks of housing without the millions of occupants to pay mortgages or rent? How can they do that if they don't have jobs? Likewise owning a widget factory or a software company or a porn studio. Without consumers and workers to make the cash flow around and around, the whole country isn't worth a million bucks. What makes it valuable are the people at work creating and consuming.

reasoner

[edit on 27-2-2009 by reasoner]

SO NOW YOU FEW KNOW HOW WE TAKE OVER. IT IS TO LATE TO STOP US.

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
I think the reason that they are publishing this stuff is that it's a good way to cover your tracks.

If you ever DID get caught with stuff like this you can say, "We didn't lie to you, it's been there the entire time and you just didn't care to look"

Interesting hypothesis, but if they own and control everything, then to whom are they worried about being held accountable someday? The greys?

If they can fool or control 99.999999% of the people for 28 years (virtually everybody but Burien), then their control is so complete there's no need for a flimsy cover story like that.

reasoner

reply to post by reasoner


I think Headshot might have a good point. I mean the damage control rendered if this were to blow up and the public demand acknowledgment would for the most part I'm sure have something to do with what he says, "Well its been here all along and it is for emergencies yet perceived..." blah blah blah, But if they had tried to deliberately hide it and got caught red handed there would be a whole lot more hell to pay and it would definitely make them instantly guilty of deception which in turn would incite distrust so no damage control could effectively manage the fallout.

Oh, one other factor that he frequently omits is inflation.

If the government of Washington State increases their revenues and spending over ten years, does that mean the government has doubled in size? Yes, given zero inflation. No, it has grown by some smaller figure if there has been inflation, we have to see the figures to compute it.

Even if zero inflation, if it collects and spends twice as much ten years later, does that mean it is twice as large a burden on each taxpayer? No, we also need to know whether the population has grown and by how much.

To see how much the government has really grown (in proportion to taxpayers) you need to factor in both population growth and inflation.

To see how much the government has grown in proportion to the economy, you need to know the economic growth during that period. If the economy tripled in dollars while tax revenues only doubled, it would have actually shrunk in proportion (not likely!). But Washington's economy almost certainly grew during those ten years as well, so that needs to be factored in.

Let's put this in another context. Suppose you have saved $400,000 for retirement. You are getting 2.5% interest on it, or $10,000 per year, which you plow back into the same account. Suppose inflation is also 2.5%. You look at your annual income and expenses and think about asking for a raise or taking a part time second job. Why not just use that $10,000 instead?

Well, in truth that $10,000 is probably just keeping up with inflation, if that. If you *don't* plow it back in, your retirement fund is actually shrinking in value. It's not "real income" in the operational sense. (Now if you get 10% returns, then there is some real income after inflation!)

(Of course, you have to pay state and federal tax on that $10,000, which isn't really fair. You should pay tax only on interest above inflation. But that's another subject.)

My point here is that most of the interest on pension funds is not operational revenue, it's a neccessary part of building up the numbers of the funds to try to match and beat inflaction. Likewise dividends or value increases in stock - only the portion above inflation is real positive income - and since most pension funds are underfunded, you need to get ahead of inflation when you can so the portion of pensions passed onto future taxpayers can be less.

I would be intersted in an analysis of CAFR figures which takes all of these considerations into account. It might still show abuse, or it might not. By omitting these major factors, any analyais such as Burien presents is known to be faulty.

I think a CAFR-like disclosure of long term liablities is needed, and that there is much more embarrassing data being hidden in that direction. Not exactly because of being evil, but because electoral politics, just like the stock market, favors things which pay off in the next couple of years over things which are wise twenty years down the line (when some other politician or CEO will inherit the problem).

reasoner

Still another factor is bonds.

When a state or local government passes something like a sales tax for water projects, what happens is that they borrow billions of dollars from investors (domestic and abroad) to build the pipelines or whatever, with the promise of paying more than that much back in the future, using funds collected month by month via sales taxes.

What this means is that the state is always many billions of dollars in the hock for repaying past bonds (some of which money was spent in the past and some being spent now). This has to be taken into account in the analysis.

Accumulated sales tax that is already pledged for bond repayment should not be counted as spare revenue ready to be used to reduce taxes or increase spending.

reasoner

Some of his claims should be fairly straightforward to verify.

Does the government own 83% of Microsoft?

If so, it changes how I perceive both Microsoft and the government quite radically, and this is just a small instance from the general point he is making.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by EvilAxis]

Valuable input Reasoner. One thing I would ask though, if Burien use to work as an accountant for 14 years prior to handling all this, is it then possible all of this that he speaks of is being summarized in some fashion which is to some extent undefined as of yet skimming the value of his info down to the limitation of his summary? I mean SHOULDN'T he know all of the factors your pointing out to be relevant points of contention and thus take them into account when giving his personal opinion on the matter? Lastly, how likely is it that this guy is intentionally misleading those who are listening to him as oppose to being simply being incorrect in number crunching in your own opinion? Thanks for the participation thus far!

Can anybody independently document what portion of major corporation's stock is owned by governments? That was one of the most important assertions he makes, but that's not available from CAFR documents.

He says that "institutional investors" is essentially the same as governments. Is that true? How about company pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds (like my private retirement), etc?

If state and local governments are owning such a high proportion of stocks, where is the room for all those Chinese and Saudi investments? Something doesn't quite add up; maybe it's true, but I need some confirmation.

If the proportion owned by governments is really as high as he asserts, that could be a real concern for a number of reasons. I'd really like to know the truth.

But it's still unfounded to compare that to the Soviet Union! Being a stock investor within the market economy is radically different than having a command economy, even if the investor consists of thousands of local and state governments trying to fund their future pensions, etc.

Ames Iowa may have a million bucks invested in Microsoft, and Kentucky may have several million more - but they don't run Microsoft any more than a private investor from Argentina does.

I challenge anybody to show a difference in how corporations are run when they have a high and a low percentage of mixed government investments. Pick one, like - Target, or Proctor and Gamble or Sony. Study how they operate in the real world first, and from that predict how much of their stock is owned by various governments. If there is not detectable difference in operations, then who cares? (I can guarantee that you'll find huge differences between any of those companies and a Soviet era government enterprise!).

Let's not bring in old cold war reflexes that really don't fit. We have enough real problems without tilting at windmills too.

reasoner

I watched the video with great interest and it reminded me of a thought I had during the election this past year.

Example:
Hilary Clinton is millions of dollars in debt from running her campaign. Where does she get the money to pay it off and why would she go into so much debt to hold a job that pays a small fraction of what she spent. I know most of the money she spent came from investors but still why?

I thought it may have been because of the US history and getting recognition for being elected but after listening to that video it makes a lot more sense to me now.

reply to post by reasoner


Because if people stop playing, there is no more game.

They can control all they want but if people are fed up past the point of fear it's over for the big boys.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
Valuable input Reasoner. One thing I would ask though, if Burien use to work as an accountant for 14 years

Good questions.

I wonder if he did work as an accountant. (Sigh. This week I ran into new advice about dealing with an earthquake from "the worlds most experienced rescue team" and was considering adopting it; but uppon researching ths source he turns out to be basically a well known fraud and con man of sorts in Arizona who have virtually no real experience. He sounded so legit until I did the research. So this week I'm not just assuming that people have the qualifications they claim).

I have no reason to believe either way about Burien's experience - I just don't take it as a given that it's true because he says it.

(Nor do I automatically believe that the only reason he could have had trouble with child protective services is that the NWO caused that agency to harass him to keep him silent.)

And - we all know that a certain fraction people in any profession have, um, unusual belief systems which override any professional training. On the benign side, Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling had a real bug about the wonders of Vitimin C - tho extensive research contradicted his assertions, he didn't budge. Less benignly, Peter Duesberg was a respected virologist who kind of went off the deep end about HIV being harmless. There are police officers with wacky conspiracy theories that most folks here would discount, delusional pilots, etc. The number of trained doctors with miracle cures that can't be clinically verified is legion. No degree of intelligence or education prevents people from succumbing to mental stuck places, or prevents them from needing attention, etc. (That's why it's so darn hard to sift the real evidence from the noise in these forums).

The point here though is that we can find a few kooks in any field who shoujld know better. So we don't take even one qualified professional's word as "proof". If their evidence holds up, there will be scores, hundreds or thousands of others with appropriate training who can see it the same way (even if they are only 5% of the profession).

I find it hard to believe that among all the thousands or millions of people accessing CAFRs over the past 28 years, there aren't a good number of other qualified accountants who are not paid off, intimidated etc.

I'm not saying "dismiss his allegation" offhand, so much as that we should have other accountants who understand government finance look at the data, and also listen to whatever explanation the local or state governments have before making a judgment. I'm skeptical of Burien, but I'm willing to change my mind as evidence builds up. If it does.

reasoner

I think that reasoner's points are spot-on.
This guy is a fear mongerer. I wonder what it is he wants people to buy?

I want to know more about this story. Why isn't this guy dead, if what he spoke of was true?

I'd greatly appreciate it if any financial experts could shed some light on this - is it true and if it is, how can I verify his claims in my own area?

I'm in the UK and I wonder if the same thing is happening here. By the sounds of it governments need the liquid investments (is that the right term?) but the sheer amounts quoted are disproportionate... is that the general gist of things?

I haven't watched the whole video yet either, only the first part due to lack of time - but confirmation of his claims from someone in the know would be excellent.