DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on December 17, 2008, 05:26:06 AM
-
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/16/news/madoff.hedges.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/16/news/madoff.hedges.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote)
"...those that went with Madoff chose faith over evidence. "You've got people who were disintermediated [i.e., didn't have a professional representative], or unsophisticated, or went in through a personal relationship. That's what a con man is -- a confidence man is somebody that engenders a relationship and then subsequently lures somebody into doing something that they shouldn't do." (According to the federal criminal complaint against him, Madoff has confessed that he ran a "giant Ponzi scheme." His lawyer, Ira Sorkin, declined to comment.)
No word yet on the possibility of arresting the whole Congress for a simular Con known as Social Security.
-
Bernard Madoff, the former chairman of Nasdaq, has been arrested and confessed to Federal officials that he ran a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of $50 billion.
The name of the Ponzi scheme: Nasdaq.
Jay Leno
-
Bernard Madoff another swine that made almost all his political donations to Democrats
-
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/16/news/madoff.hedges.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/16/news/madoff.hedges.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote)"...those that went with Madoff chose faith over evidence. "You've got people who were disintermediated [i.e., didn't have a professional representative], or unsophisticated, or went in through a personal relationship. That's what a con man is -- a confidence man is somebody that engenders a relationship and then subsequently lures somebody into doing something that they shouldn't do." (According to the federal criminal complaint against him, Madoff has confessed that he ran a "giant Ponzi scheme." His lawyer, Ira Sorkin, declined to comment.)
No word yet on the possibility of arresting the whole Congress for a simular Con known as Social Security.
Doubtful, unfortunately >:(
-
Ever notice how government wants YOU to sacrifice, but government NEVER does.
Something else I've noticed; government goes after big oil, big pharmaceutical, but never goes after big education. Oh sure, they lament the cost but never go after big education (college) to lower it's rates or share it's windfall profits. They actually complaining about the cost, and then offer to help pay the outrageous cost while never asking for reductions or drag the presidents of these universities in front of Senate hearings to berate them like they do other business people.
-
What college has "windfall profits"?
Please. You know nothing.
-
>>What college has "windfall profits"? Please. You know nothing.<<
Mr. Literal raises his ugly head.
He's like Mikey. He hates everything.
-
Again. what college has "windfall profits"? Name one.
You know less than nothing. Your insults are not even entertaining.
-
"Again. what college has "windfall profits"? Name one"
Well I guess we can start here:
http://tulane.edu/news/releases/archive/2006/pr_120806.cfm (http://tulane.edu/news/releases/archive/2006/pr_120806.cfm)
"A windfall gain (or windfall profit) is any type of income that is unexpected"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain)
-
Here is another wind fall profit at a university:
San Jose State:
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2007/10/15/News/Journalism.Department.Receives.Surprise.Donation-3031708.shtml (http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2007/10/15/News/Journalism.Department.Receives.Surprise.Donation-3031708.shtml)
-
Here is a 100 million wind fall profit for another university
http://dental.pacific.edu/x2049.xml (http://dental.pacific.edu/x2049.xml)
-
http://flathatnews.com/content/university-receives-5-million-anonymously (http://flathatnews.com/content/university-receives-5-million-anonymously)
-
See, that's what I mean: you just do not understand higher education.
Both of these are NOT "windfall profits". They are donations, and are generally used to support the programs agreed upon by the university and the donors. A profit would be an instance where the tuition charged more than the cost of providing the programs offered. This almost never happens. Nearly all donations are restricted funds. If they spend the money on something other than (for example) the Lester B. Phreet School of Business and Economics or the Maude R. Hardyburger Library, the university will get sued. They usually have some way of sneaking a bit of the bequests into a part of the utility bills and such, but normally most of the money will be spent as agreed upon.
If the university has to share its donations and bequests with the student body, then the rich fatcats who donate will not donate at all. They can always find someone to put their names on prominent buildings and stuff. Often, they want a building or a program named after them. When they get old, they realize that the fortune they made in trash collection, real estate development, peddling cars, groceries, clothes or whatever does not leave them with a sense of triumphant accomplishment, so they make bequests, and they are very picky (as you would be) about how their money (they feel it was hard-earned money, even if it wasn't, just like everyone feels) is spent.
Where there is abuse in higher education, it tends to be in the salaries and perks offered to administrators or a very small, very select few professors, usually of the guest sort. Henry Kissinger taught one course at Harvard to fewer than 20 grad students and received more income than most other professors who taught up to ten times as many students with three or four courses to prepare for.
He was frequently absent as well.
His entire salary, however, did not involve wasting a dime of Harvard's money, as it was paid by the Rockefellers.
-
>>You know less than nothing.<<
How can you know less than nothing Mr. Literal? Please, enlighten us all brainiac.
>>Your insults are not even entertaining.<<
Oh I don't know. I got Brass to laugh at your expense the other day.
;D
-
See what he means CU4.
He can justify and lie about anything.
Thanks by the way. Those of us putting children through college know the ridiculous prices.
-
How can you know less than nothing Mr. Literal? Please, enlighten us all brainiac.
==================================
I am hoping that you are capable of comprehending this.
If Bozo is asked "How much is two plus two?", and one answers "I do not know"., then it can be said that one knows nothing.
On the other hand, if Dodo is asked the same question, and insists over and over that the answer is twenty-two, then it can be said that while Bozo knows nothing, Dodo knows even less. Hence Dodo (that would be you) knows less than nothing.
Nearly everything you say you know is not true.
-
"Both of these are NOT "windfall profit"
Yes they are.
Obviously you do not know the defintion of "wind fall profit".
Windfall profit defined:
A windfall gain (or windfall profit) is any type of income that is unexpected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain)
-
I'll quote Ronaldus Magnus: There you go again.
... less than nothing ... nice try though.
:D
-
Those of us putting children through college know the ridiculous prices.
======================================================
You should get wealthy patrons to give tuition money to your children, rather than to the universities. Perhaps they would do this more willingly if you allowed the names of the patrons to be tattooed on your offsprings' foreheads. "The Donald R. Trump Student of Business";"The Richard Mellon Scaife Student of Marketing".
Alas, it is a matter of supply and demand. Professors who taught for the joy of teaching are retiring and being replaced by fewer, hungrier, and less charitable scholars. It's not nearly so bad as what OPEC does on a regular basis.
-
Yes they are.
Obviously you do not know the defintion of "wind fall profit".
Windfall profit defined:
A windfall gain (or windfall profit) is any type of income that is unexpected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain)
================
Call it anything you wish. The facts are, however these:
(1) Nearly all donations, unexpected or not, come with many strings attached. They must be spent in the manner agreed upon or the university will not get the money or will have to return it.
(2) Anonymous checks are extremely rare. If they are very large, they might go into the university's endowment, or be used to start a new academic endeavor. If not, they will go into the general fund and might cause a drop in tuition. However, there will be some marketing types in the university administration who will say "how can we spend this money for maximum prestige and attention to our image? Rather than just lower tuition for a few years, let us charge what the public is willing to pay, and let us spend this money in such a way as to enhance our image and attract even more donations." So maybe they will give special scholarships to deserving and poor students exclusively, or they could start a program of studies in a trendy subject.
-
Well, you have to admire Xo's rationalization efforts to condemn "obscene profits" when its Big "X" (X = oil, business, pharmaceutical, or any other large private company/corporation), but if it's an establishment of what the left supports, such as Big School, Big Union, Big Government, etc, well, then whatever surprising large sums of $$$$ are brought in, are welcomed, with a perfectly "rational" explanation.
News flash Xo, the point is the large sums of money taken in, not the rationalized effort of what the Big "whatever" intends to do with it
-
Lookit, silly.
When Big Oil or Big Pharma rakes in tons of money, this is done because they can get away with it. The people buying gas or pills do not want to pay more, they are forced to.
When a university gets a huge bequest, it is voluntarily given: Harvard does not extort mammoth donations as a rule from the major benefactors.
When Big Oil or Big Pharma or whomever gets a bundle of money, they have some restrictions on what they can spend it from the shareholders and the business planners, but academic contributions are much more restricted as a rule.
And the reason this came up was Richpo or someone else bitching about the high cost of tuition. I was explaining why donations (which are not like windfall profits (except in the widest sense).
If you want to complain about how universities are not compared in the news with big business, then call Rush. He lets people like you vent from time to time. Or start a blog.
-
>>When Big Oil or Big Pharma rakes in tons of money, this is done because they can get away with it. The people buying gas or pills do not want to pay more, they are forced to.<<
Interesting. But then I'm forced to pay whatever the University wants, or I can lumb it ... silly.
-
And yet again, Xo's infatuation with Rush Limbaugh. I wonder if there's some medication for that. something from Big Pharma, perhaps
-
in other words XO changes the subject
first it was "Universities dont get a wind fall profit"
then when it is proven by definition universities do get a windfall profit
XO then changes the subject and argues some wind fall profits = good....if he so deems them to be
::)
-
If unexpected donations are a windfall, they are not a profit.
A profit implies the exchange of money for a product or service.
A donation is therefore not a profit.
-
Mr. Literal strikes again
-
Mr. Literal strikes again
Are you suggesting by this that you used something metaphorical?
What might that be, pray tell?
-
Not so much metaphorically, but in general, such as in windfall profits, when it was already explained to you, numerous times already, that we're talking about sudden large sums of $$$$. When private companies/industries get it, it's "obscene", and must be either taxed or taken for the greater good of society, as declared by someone completely unaffected by their "obscenity". When universities/schools get it, its perfectly acceptable, and need not be divied up what-so-ever, as declared by someone completely unaffected by it.
-
The fact that you disagree with my interpretation of the term "windfall profits" and explain the definition you favor does not obligate me in any way to accept your definition, as you seem to think.
I do not normally use the term "obscene profits", I prefer the more accurate term "extortionate profits" for those made on $4.50 a gallon gasoline or a $15 charge for one Tylenol tablet. $5 for a bottle of water at a Peruvian festival was also a major ripoff, but less so, because free warm water was availabel.
Universities are not asked to pay taxes on donations because donations to nonprofit schools are tax deductible, like donations to churches and such. If you find this to be unjust, then you should inform your congressperson. N one here is responsible for this affront to your sense of justice.
You seem to disagree with the idea that a university and a for-profit corporation are fundamentally different in their goals and should be treated differently. I disagree with this. Universities profide a socially beneficial service and should be encouraged to do so. In countries where this has been disallowed to religious-based universities, there have been no religious based universities until the disallowance has been repealed, which means that the government has had the exclusive role of providing higher education.
But if this is the case, then there are certainly a lot of religious organizations that should also pay taxes.
If donations were taxed, then this would put an end to such donations, as most such donations are made to avoid paying taxes. John Q. Philanthropist believes that if he pays income taxes or estate taxes, the money will be used to pay for things less beneficial than the John Q. Philanthropist School of Whatever, so he donates money to the latter.
If the deduction is disallowed, then he would simply pay the taxes, and make no donations. It is my belief that if this were to happen, education would suffer, fewer people would receive a good education and we would mostly all be worse off for it. So I favor the government making a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit entities. There are some non-profits that seem to be quite profitable for their administrators and do not seem to do a lot of good for their donors, such as some televangelists (Benny Hinn comes to mind), and if I were running the show, I imagine I would examine these with a bit more scrutiny.
This is not really a discussion about how stupid I am because I do not accept your definition of "windfall profits". It is actually a discussion about how you think that universities should not be classified as non-profits, or perhaps how all corporations not be taxed at all on their profits.
-
Your literal interpretations aside, the rationale for you using them is as transparent as one can get....deflection, deflection, deflection
-
You are a waste of time. A total waste of time. You do appear not read anything I write, and probably are incapable of understanding it, anyway. Go tax Harvard or whatever.
Get hosed.
-
That would be yet another deflection effort, this time disguised as a kute-lite insult. Good diversity though. Perhaps I should apply an X0-like response. Should I use a fire hose?, a garden hose? Perhaps you want me to use pantyhose? If it's 1 of the 2 former, it should be outside, but should a 2nd person be required. If it's the latter it could be either, but I'm gonna respectfully decline that one, without any further qualifiers of yours added.
-
Yes they are.
Obviously you do not know the defintion of "wind fall profit".
Windfall profit defined:
A windfall gain (or windfall profit) is any type of income that is unexpected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_gain)
================
Call it anything you wish. The facts are, however these:
(1) Nearly all donations, unexpected or not, come with many strings attached. They must be spent in the manner agreed upon or the university will not get the money or will have to return it.
(2) Anonymous checks are extremely rare. If they are very large, they might go into the university's endowment, or be used to start a new academic endeavor. If not, they will go into the general fund and might cause a drop in tuition. However, there will be some marketing types in the university administration who will say "how can we spend this money for maximum prestige and attention to our image? Rather than just lower tuition for a few years, let us charge what the public is willing to pay, and let us spend this money in such a way as to enhance our image and attract even more donations." So maybe they will give special scholarships to deserving and poor students exclusively, or they could start a program of studies in a trendy subject.
Ah Ha!
Cuba turns out a doctor on less money than we need to graduate a tech school diploma, what determines what an education will cost and should we be willing to p-ay a significant fraction of the income an education will help to produce?
-
Cuba turns out a doctor on less money than we need to graduate a tech school diploma, what determines what an education will cost and should we be willing to p-ay a significant fraction of the income an education will help to produce?
========================
Obviously, what we need to do is to end the embargo and send medical students galore to study in Cuba.
I was just stating what seems to go on in some universities. Education is marketed just like other products. That is the way this country works. It certainly isn't my doing or desire.
And the fact remains that if non-profits are taxed, then the cost of education will go up even more, because if donations are taxed, there will be far fewer donations.
I don;t see this ever happening, just as I do not ever expect any religious group will be taxed.
-
because if donations are taxed, there will be far fewer donations.
Why? The donor will still be able to write off the donation - we're talking about taxing the recipient.
-
The donor will still be able to write off the donation - we're talking about taxing the recipient.
=======================
Because the donor will not donate to a cause that will have to turn over a portion to the taxman when he knows that 100% of what he donates to another cause (such as a church or a foundation) will not be taxed at all.
You could donate to Harvard Business School and only 60% goes to that building or program with your name on it.
Or you could donate to the Famished Children Fund and 95% goes to feed the hungry little tykes. They wil be glad to put your name on their building, too.
Which would you choose?
========================
This is as you are surely intelligent enough to know, a totally moot point. Donations to even the wealthiest universities will never be taxed.
But in the event they were, the above would apply.
When anyone donates money, they do so with at least as much care as they took when they earned it, in most cases.
People tend to donate to charities that will send a greater share of the money to the intended cause.