I guess reading is hard for good ole ikes.

My understanding is that ikes is actually right after doing some research on this. GASB which apparently has adopted many GAAP principles sets the accounting standards for govts. Apparently not all govts use GASB. After grunching on this a little bit I came to a few conclusions. First of all the polifacts linky I posted doesn't appear to substantiate it's claim in the least in the links they posted. They may be right but the linkys don't support what they're saying as far as I can tell. Could be wrong but so far I don't see it. What's needed is the actual financial documents from both administrations in order to make a comparison. I'm going to attempt to do that. It shouldn't be that complicated.

If you look at the report I posted a linky to it basically goes over the problems with Wisconsin govt accounting over the years. In a nutshell the problem is that the govt kept two sets of books, one that used cash accounting and one that used accrual accounting. Continuously the Wisconsin govt used cash accounting to promote it's claim of a balanced budget and the report goes into some detail about why that's a problem. In a nutshell cash accounting does not use the matching principle which I posted about. Read the report as to why that's a problem but it has to do with govt expenses not being lined up with the revenue received to pay those expenses.

Accrual accounting is used to provide transparency to business and govt finances. I definitely understood why it did that for business but wasn't sure why it would do that for govt. After skimming the report I get why now. Stay tuned.

Okay, again, it literally makes no difference what governments usually use vs. GAAP. I have no idea why you're writing books on the subject here. I posted it for 2 reasons 1) just a minor lol at Walker breaking a promise he's been hammering on for like 5 years and 2) to give Inso0 a little something to worry about in our deficit bet.

Also, you say 'linky' way too much :P

Offer still stands for a 50% buyout on our bet, Joe.

You're crazy if you think ANY major reporting outlet is going to show the WI budget with a deficit larger than the $3.5B that Doyle had. Get out now while there is still time.

Que? Why would we rely on major reporting outlets? Wouldn't we just go off whatever numbers the state itself is using?

Seems like that's what you would really want to use IMO as it's going to be hard to win, but I'm not giving up! :P

Ikes ironically wins the bet if Walker leaves this year after being recalled

Unfortunately I think the recall all but assures I lose the bet =|

The point is that all of GAAP isn't applicable to govt finances. At least some is, maybe a lot is. I think that's what GASB is all about. Accounting methods do make a difference. I can guarantee that people buying muni bonds care about how a govt does it's accounting.

I'm not writing books, that's completely absurd. There's a talking point that you're regurgitating. It may be correct, it may not be. I've seen nothing to back it up. I believe it can be determined whether or not the point is valid. If so then then the results can be used to determine more about how Walker is governing. You really don't know whether the talking point is valid or not apparently. That says something about your credibility.

You don't know this though. You've offered nothing that I can see but a talking point.

But you obviously don't know what you're talking about tbh when you're talking about this subject.

You got caught making a statement you know little about, deal with it.

All that post deserves is really a 'lol wat'

He discusses GAAP - and posts articles about it - on his own campaign website. It was part of his platform ffs.

What talking point am I offering here? Honestly I think you've read far far far too much into a simple quote I posted. As for the 2nd paragraph I don't even know what you're trying to say. Are you saying the deficit number they came up with isn't real?

lol

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...effort-6610089

Seems consistent with his stance on not wanting WI to go bankrupt like Illinois.

Why should the taxpayers have to pony up the money to pay for a private security force for people who want to protest the capitol?

Same goes for property damage.

I thought this new post was going to be today's little "WI LEADING THE NATION IN JOB LOSSES" headline that I've been seeing all over the place. Walker haters ITT are getting soft.

Probably because you've been losing jobs for a couple months and it's old news whereas making people pay to exhibit first amendment rights is a new low.

And as far as I know Capitol Police aren't private security.

No, but they were abused as such during the protests.

How exactly were they abused?