Was it BL that was from Cali?

Posted by tangplay on 1/19/2018 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 1:58:00 PM (view original):
I'm looking at the entire UGA system, not just the one University of Georgia. Overall, they took in $2.1 billion in state appropriations.

And yes, that happens for all state schools, but it's ironclad proof that they are not profiting.

Well we are comparing apples and oranges then. LOL.

Is their cash increasing or decreasing? Cash is king the rest is accounting games.

The system took in $2.1 BILLION IN STATE APPROPRIATIONS!

That's not a profit. That's a subsidy to keep it running.

I'm not arguing against subsidizing state schools with taxpayer money, it's a great thing. But don't be stupid and pretend that those schools turn a profit. They don't.

They do if they wanted to. They know they have appropriations and fund raising sources. If I know cash is coming in I will spend it. UGA's endowment is over $1Bn!! Stop being obtuse and admit that these schools can make money and what they show on paper for losses does not equate to cash losses. If the appropriations are lower, they will spend less. How do you not comprehend that? I am confused?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the argument isn't 'can they make money?'. I interpret it as 'do they make money?'.

By make money do you mean increase their cash position because THAT is what I have been arguing from day one. I never said a positive bottom line ON PAPER I mean actual cash.

If you sell me a car for $10k and I promise to pay you, then your revenues are $10k but if I don't pay you for 30 days, your cash position is zero. Do you understand that? Revenues and losses are just numbers on paper, but cash is key. UGA the university consistently increases it's cash position and for a NFP that is critical. Harvard had a $77mil surplus last year but it pales in comparison to it's endowment. They are flush with cash. That is critical for all NFPs. CASH!!! They cannot show a huge profit otherwise they will not garner any help from states, agencies, etc.

But they DO MAKE MONEY just follow the cash.

Posted by tangplay on 1/19/2018 2:08:00 PM (view original):
Was it BL that was from Cali?

I want to know his nationality. Like for me, I am a white guy who is a Jew.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 1:58:00 PM (view original):
I'm looking at the entire UGA system, not just the one University of Georgia. Overall, they took in $2.1 billion in state appropriations.

And yes, that happens for all state schools, but it's ironclad proof that they are not profiting.

Well we are comparing apples and oranges then. LOL.

Is their cash increasing or decreasing? Cash is king the rest is accounting games.

The system took in $2.1 BILLION IN STATE APPROPRIATIONS!

That's not a profit. That's a subsidy to keep it running.

I'm not arguing against subsidizing state schools with taxpayer money, it's a great thing. But don't be stupid and pretend that those schools turn a profit. They don't.

They do if they wanted to. They know they have appropriations and fund raising sources. If I know cash is coming in I will spend it. UGA's endowment is over $1Bn!! Stop being obtuse and admit that these schools can make money and what they show on paper for losses does not equate to cash losses. If the appropriations are lower, they will spend less. How do you not comprehend that? I am confused?

We don't get to play make-believe.

They spend way more than they take in and rely on state funding. Which is fine. It's the way state schools were designed.

But if the appropriations were lower and they had to spend less, they'd have to cut classes and teachers and facilities and scholarships and, because of those cuts, enrollment would take a hit. Revenue would go down more, causing more cuts.

They'd have to raise tuition and, while the UGA system is a fine system, it's not University of California or Michigan or Virginia, so it wouldn't be as competitive with the other top public schools and they would lose more enrollment.

WRONG again they would just borrow. Their endowment is over $1Bn so if they wanted to build a new building they could borrow the monies. They could also increase tuition but because the states want it lower to help the students they subsidize the school.

Posted by tangplay on 1/19/2018 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 1:58:00 PM (view original):
I'm looking at the entire UGA system, not just the one University of Georgia. Overall, they took in $2.1 billion in state appropriations.

And yes, that happens for all state schools, but it's ironclad proof that they are not profiting.

Well we are comparing apples and oranges then. LOL.

Is their cash increasing or decreasing? Cash is king the rest is accounting games.

The system took in $2.1 BILLION IN STATE APPROPRIATIONS!

That's not a profit. That's a subsidy to keep it running.

I'm not arguing against subsidizing state schools with taxpayer money, it's a great thing. But don't be stupid and pretend that those schools turn a profit. They don't.

They do if they wanted to. They know they have appropriations and fund raising sources. If I know cash is coming in I will spend it. UGA's endowment is over $1Bn!! Stop being obtuse and admit that these schools can make money and what they show on paper for losses does not equate to cash losses. If the appropriations are lower, they will spend less. How do you not comprehend that? I am confused?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the argument isn't 'can they make money?'. I interpret it as 'do they make money?'.

This.

They aren't profitable even if they are increasing cash. I know that sounds like a paradox, but they rely on taxpayer funds. If they didn't get that public money, they would lose a ton of money.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:14:00 PM (view original):
WRONG again they would just borrow. Their endowment is over $1Bn so if they wanted to build a new building they could borrow the monies. They could also increase tuition but because the states want it lower to help the students they subsidize the school.

If their endowment is $1 billion and they are net -$2 billion, that's a problem, right?

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that cccp would consider a single mom with three kids "profitable" if she spent way more than she earned in her low paying job and relied on government checks to stay in the black.

That single mom would not increase her cash position annually and have a significant endowment. She would live paycheck to paycheck. False equivalency. Try again. And let's look at private universities, shall we?

LOL

Are you going to get angry again, BL and tell me to F off? What nationality are you? Tough guy.

Let's say that mom did increase her cash position due to the welfare she received. Profitable?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:14:00 PM (view original):
WRONG again they would just borrow. Their endowment is over $1Bn so if they wanted to build a new building they could borrow the monies. They could also increase tuition but because the states want it lower to help the students they subsidize the school.

If their endowment is $1 billion and they are net -$2 billion, that's a problem, right?

$1Bn is only for UGA and you just said -$2Bn is for all of Georgia did you not? Again I am just looking at UGA. I have not reviewed the financials for what you are looking at. Send me the link and I will but UGA is NOT even close to relying on the state for survival. JUST UGA in itself.

Same for UMASS in MA.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that cccp would consider a single mom with three kids "profitable" if she spent way more than she earned in her low paying job and relied on government checks to stay in the black.

That single mom would not increase her cash position annually and have a significant endowment. She would live paycheck to paycheck. False equivalency. Try again. And let's look at private universities, shall we?

LOL

Are you going to get angry again, BL and tell me to F off? What nationality are you? Tough guy.

Let's say that mom did increase her cash position due to the welfare she received. Profitable?

Again a false equivalency. UGA keeps its tuition artificially low to allow kids instate to attend at a lower cost. If UGA wanted to charge more it easily could but that is not how the state runs its college program. In your case if the Mom had the option to get a job and earn more and not rely on the Gov't then you could make your argument.

State schools do build cash but they hide their profits well in order to keep getting state appropriations btw. So long as they build cash they are in good shape and their cash comes from donors and alumni not just the state.

We are discussing apples and oranges and it's not even my argument. Discuss with strikeout if you want. You jumped from UGA to all of Georgia. Stay on topic.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:14:00 PM (view original):
WRONG again they would just borrow. Their endowment is over $1Bn so if they wanted to build a new building they could borrow the monies. They could also increase tuition but because the states want it lower to help the students they subsidize the school.

If their endowment is $1 billion and they are net -$2 billion, that's a problem, right?

$1Bn is only for UGA and you just said -$2Bn is for all of Georgia did you not? Again I am just looking at UGA. I have not reviewed the financials for what you are looking at. Send me the link and I will but UGA is NOT even close to relying on the state for survival. JUST UGA in itself.

Same for UMASS in MA.

The endowment for the entire system is only $1.3 billion.

That -$2.0Bn, how much was one time costs such as CAPEX and such? Again I am only looking at the DOGS. UGA! They used $400mil or so in cash but that was for improvements to buildings and facilities. Without that one time cost, which they could have financed btw, they would have been in the black.

JUST UGA!!!

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that cccp would consider a single mom with three kids "profitable" if she spent way more than she earned in her low paying job and relied on government checks to stay in the black.

That single mom would not increase her cash position annually and have a significant endowment. She would live paycheck to paycheck. False equivalency. Try again. And let's look at private universities, shall we?

LOL

Are you going to get angry again, BL and tell me to F off? What nationality are you? Tough guy.

Let's say that mom did increase her cash position due to the welfare she received. Profitable?

Again a false equivalency. UGA keeps its tuition artificially low to allow kids instate to attend at a lower cost. If UGA wanted to charge more it easily could but that is not how the state runs its college program. In your case if the Mom had the option to get a job and earn more and not rely on the Gov't then you could make your argument.

State schools do build cash but they hide their profits well in order to keep getting state appropriations btw. So long as they build cash they are in good shape and their cash comes from donors and alumni not just the state.

We are discussing apples and oranges and it's not even my argument. Discuss with strikeout if you want. You jumped from UGA to all of Georgia. Stay on topic.

I thought you said cash position is all that matters?

The state schools keep tuition low but would be uncompetitive with private schools and better public schools if the tuition were higher.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/19/2018 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/19/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that cccp would consider a single mom with three kids "profitable" if she spent way more than she earned in her low paying job and relied on government checks to stay in the black.

That single mom would not increase her cash position annually and have a significant endowment. She would live paycheck to paycheck. False equivalency. Try again. And let's look at private universities, shall we?

LOL

Are you going to get angry again, BL and tell me to F off? What nationality are you? Tough guy.

Let's say that mom did increase her cash position due to the welfare she received. Profitable?

Again a false equivalency. UGA keeps its tuition artificially low to allow kids instate to attend at a lower cost. If UGA wanted to charge more it easily could but that is not how the state runs its college program. In your case if the Mom had the option to get a job and earn more and not rely on the Gov't then you could make your argument.

State schools do build cash but they hide their profits well in order to keep getting state appropriations btw. So long as they build cash they are in good shape and their cash comes from donors and alumni not just the state.

We are discussing apples and oranges and it's not even my argument. Discuss with strikeout if you want. You jumped from UGA to all of Georgia. Stay on topic.

I thought you said cash position is all that matters?

The state schools keep tuition low but would be uncompetitive with private schools and better public schools if the tuition were higher.

Tuition is higher? UMASS is much lower than Harvard or Boston College? What do you mean?

Cash position is all that matters, yes. Well not all. So long as they don't burn cash you are good.

Why are you guys arguing about STATE colleges/universities? By definition, they are funded by the states... If anything, they're more tied to the political machinations of funding and instructional guidelines than private universities.

Also, to be balanced, how many ACCREDITED colleges/universities are private vs. public? I honestly don't even know which type is more prevalent.