Progressive Ideology

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

i think that's question that no one is answering, or can even really answer. we had this exact discussion a few years ago on LP.

if i'm told going to a public HS is socialism, even though i pay taxes for that district, then it follows that if i live in a blue state that some claim "fund" red states, well then, not only do i not get the benefit of the red state school, but i paid for it, and also the school i use in my district. and even those attending the red state school, will have paid taxes.

make the same argument for driving down a state highway.

there's just no answer; only degrees.

and there is no consensus on what degree makes this socialism or not.

and so we continue to use terms with different definitions, hence, talking past each other.

[a fan]

Except you pay for college, public or not. Also, taxes... But sure, socialism.

If you "paid" for college, the University of Florida wouldn't be taking my tax dollars. Or take tax dollars from your fellow Floridians because guys like you are horrible at math.

Your tuition doesn't cover the cost of attending. If it did, it wouldn't need donations. And it sure as *hit wouldn't need to take money from me, to educate you.

All the same. Every single "socialism is bad" genius attends State University.

They're all the same. Selfish, self centered.

What they REALLY mean when they complain about socialism is: socialism and handouts for me....and everyone else can F off. I got mine.

math on how you are paying for florida public schools?
i'm not following the argument there.

UF gets hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal grants for scholarships and research every single year

and colorado schools receive no money? colorado the state receives no money?

You're missing the context of this conversation. Petey is claiming he hates socialism, and socialism is bad, not me. JHU72 is right...I'm not the one complaining about handouts or socialism. Pete is.

Further, Pete attended the taxpayer-funded, Government owned and operated, University of Florida.

Meanwhile, I attended entirely private trade schools that don't get one cent of taxpayer money. More to the point, my advanced qualifications and training were obtained in Germany. No American dollars needed.

We're simply pointing out Pete's nonstop hypocrisy, is all. I, for one, have no problem whatsoever with paying for Pete's schooling. HE is the one who's whining about handouts and socialism.....except when HE gets the handout. Then, of course, it's just fine.

[wgdsr]

… I think the point is, the Colorado resident is not complaining about a little bit of socialism.

what is the line on socialism?

… you'll have to translate that question

zero government services or money coming in (which would mean there's actually no federal govt i guess) is not socialism.

people putting x? amount of their income/resources/ownership into a big pot for services y? galore is one part of a definition for socialism.

what's the x and y? isn't that what we're talking about? everyone's definition of x and y? or is there a set line? i know it's not zero, so where's the line?

does everyone have to have the same line?

[wgdsr]

Except you pay for college, public or not. Also, taxes... But sure, socialism.

If you "paid" for college, the University of Florida wouldn't be taking my tax dollars. Or take tax dollars from your fellow Floridians because guys like you are horrible at math.

Your tuition doesn't cover the cost of attending. If it did, it wouldn't need donations. And it sure as *hit wouldn't need to take money from me, to educate you.

All the same. Every single "socialism is bad" genius attends State University.

They're all the same. Selfish, self centered.

What they REALLY mean when they complain about socialism is: socialism and handouts for me....and everyone else can F off. I got mine.

math on how you are paying for florida public schools?
i'm not following the argument there.

UF gets hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal grants for scholarships and research every single year

and colorado schools receive no money? colorado the state receives no money?

You're missing the context of this conversation. Petey is claiming he hates socialism, and socialism is bad, not me. JHU72 is right...I'm not the one complaining about handouts or socialism. Pete is.

Further, Pete attended the taxpayer-funded, Government owned and operated, University of Florida.

Meanwhile, I attended entirely private trade schools that don't get one cent of taxpayer money. More to the point, my advanced qualifications and training were obtained in Germany. No American dollars needed.

We're simply pointing out Pete's nonstop hypocrisy, is all. I, for one, have no problem whatsoever with paying for Pete's schooling. HE is the one who's whining about handouts and socialism.....except when HE gets the handout. Then, of course, it's just fine.

can you explain how you are paying for florida schools? i don't get it.

[a fan]

i think that's question that no one is answering, or can even really answer. we had this exact discussion a few years ago on LP.

if i'm told going to a public HS is socialism, even though i pay taxes for that district, then it follows that if i live in a blue state that some claim "fund" red states, well then, not only do i not get the benefit of the red state school, but i paid for it, and also the school i use in my district. and even those attending the red state school, will have paid taxes.

You're confusing the funding mechanism with what defines socialism.

Socialism means that the means of production/service are owned and operated by the State. That's it. How you get collect the money to operate the State owned organization is immaterial to the definition of socialism.

That said, if we're focusing on how the State-owned service is funded?

For the University of Florida? You could move tuition so high so that you don't need a cent of taxpayer money for all operations. None of them do that, of course. Further, you'd have to pay off the land and all construction bonds paid for by the State.

Same for roads. You can make it so that fees pay for every cent of the road. Fee for use. The problem with this is that the price would be through the roof.

As for K-12, people forget about the Federal funding, as well as the fact that businesses pay in. That's what used to keep everyone's taxes low. But as CradleandShoot and I have discussed over the years----politicians have given away their tax base to woo corporate employers. The result is that in most States (NY in particular), corporate tax contributions are half of what they was in the 1970's, while at the same time, individual tax collections have doubled. This is in terms of percentage contribution to a State's budget.

Voters don't understand that. They think when Amazon gets sweet tax breaks, that the taxes are "made up somewhere else". Nope. They're not. Voters forget that the State and Municipalities COUNT on getting that Amazon money, and "someone else" has to make up that shortfall. Voters also forget that Amazon consumes public services....police, fire, etc....that they aren't paying for....

[a fan]

zero government services or money coming in (which would mean there's actually no federal govt i guess) is not socialism.

Let's make sure we're all using the actual definition of socialism.

Socialism: noun. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

In the context of this conversation, the University of Florida is owned and controlled by the State. Therefore, it is a socialized entity.

We can have, and do have, private Universities, owned and operated by private organizations. Petey says he things socialism is bad. But if you ask Petey why, then, did you attend a socialized institute of higher learning? Why not attend his favored school, Loyola...a private school, then?

He can't answer that question.

people putting x? amount of their income/resources/ownership into a big pot for services y? galore is one part of a definition for socialism.

Incorrect. You can put your resources into attending, say, Princeton. That's not socialism.

The entire definition of the word is ENTIRELY dependent on: who owns and operates the entity?

So for example, the US government owns Federal land. It can issue mining or water rights for said land to private firms. That's not socialism because while it is owned by the State, it is not operated by the State.

However, in the case of YellowStone? The State owns and operates that land for the people----that's socialism.

Princeton: not socialism. Owned and operated by a private entity.

So to answer you question, Petey attended the University of Florida, which is owned and operated by the State. Socialism. And U of Florida is funded, in part, by my Federal tax dollars. Easy to understand.

[6ftstick]

i think that's question that no one is answering, or can even really answer. we had this exact discussion a few years ago on LP.

if i'm told going to a public HS is socialism, even though i pay taxes for that district, then it follows that if i live in a blue state that some claim "fund" red states, well then, not only do i not get the benefit of the red state school, but i paid for it, and also the school i use in my district. and even those attending the red state school, will have paid taxes.

You're confusing the funding mechanism with what defines socialism.

Socialism means that the means of production/service are owned and operated by the State. That's it. How you get collect the money to operate the State owned organization is immaterial to the definition of socialism.

That said, if we're focusing on how the State-owned service is funded?

For the University of Florida? You could move tuition so high so that you don't need a cent of taxpayer money for all operations. None of them do that, of course. Further, you'd have to pay off the land and all construction bonds paid for by the State.

Same for roads. You can make it so that fees pay for every cent of the road. Fee for use. The problem with this is that the price would be through the roof.

As for K-12, people forget about the Federal funding, as well as the fact that businesses pay in. That's what used to keep everyone's taxes low. But as CradleandShoot and I have discussed over the years----politicians have given away their tax base to woo corporate employers. The result is that in most States (NY in particular), corporate tax contributions are half of what they was in the 1970's, while at the same time, individual tax collections have doubled. This is in terms of percentage contribution to a State's budget.

Voters don't understand that. They think when Amazon gets sweet tax breaks, that the taxes are "made up somewhere else". Nope. They're not. Voters forget that the State and Municipalities COUNT on getting that Amazon money, and "someone else" has to make up that shortfall. Voters also forget that Amazon consumes public services....police, fire, etc....that they aren't paying for....

You keep using that word socialism. I don't think you know what it means

socialism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]
NOUN
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms:
leftism · Fabianism · syndicalism · consumer socialism · utopian socialism · welfarism · communism · Bolshevism · radicalism · militancy · progressivism · [more]
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms:
leftism · Fabianism · syndicalism · consumer socialism · utopian socialism · welfarism · communism · Bolshevism · radicalism · militancy · [more]
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

culture
[ˈkəlCHər]
NOUN
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
"20th century popular culture"
synonyms:
the arts · the humanities · intellectual achievement(s) · intellectual activity · literature · music · painting · philosophy
the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.
"Caribbean culture" · [more]
synonyms:
civilization · society · way of life · lifestyle · customs · traditions · heritage · habits · ways · mores · values

government
[ˈɡəvər(n)mənt]
NOUN
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
"an agency of the federal government" · [more]
synonyms:
administration · executive · regime · authority · powers that be · [more]
the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed.
"a secular, pluralistic, democratic government"
the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.
"rules for the government of the infirmary"

[a fan]

You keep using that word socialism. I don't think you know what it means

I just gave you the M-W Definition, six.

Would you prefer that this former English Major use the OED?

There is no definition you can give me where the University of Florida isn't an example of socialism. What's happening here is that you don't WANT the University of Florida to be an example of socialism, simply because YOU like it. You think it's good. "Therefore", it's not socialism.

That's not how it works, six. Sorry, my man. But please, by all means, tell us how the University of Florida isn't socialism.

[seacoaster]

Here is an opinion piece in the Times today, on the subject, generally speaking, of oppressive PC culture, etc. I already know that Democrats and the "left" are evil and hate America and the Constitution and are totalitarians and Nazis and Commies and lovers of badminton. I am just trying to see if there is any discussion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/opin ... e=Homepage

"An acquaintance came to me a few weeks ago with the rough draft of a letter about free speech and asked me to sign. I declined, in part because it denounced “cancel culture.” As I wrote in an email, the phrase “‘cancel culture,’ while it describes something real, has been rendered sort of useless because it’s so often used by right-wing whiners like Ivanka Trump who think protests against them violate their free speech.”

A little later my acquaintance came back to me with a new version, which didn’t mention “cancel culture.” Like the people who wrote the letter, I think left-wing illiberalism is a problem, though I’ve mostly stopped writing about it since Donald Trump was elected, because it seems like complaining about a bee sting when you have Stage IV cancer.

So I signed. The statement, published in Harper’s Magazine as “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” spawned takes and countertakes, most of them, despite my modest effort, about “cancel culture.”

At first I avoided wading into discourse about what’s now called the Letter. It seemed self-indulgent to write about media angst when the country is self-immolating because of unchecked disease and an economic catastrophe that’s about to get much worse. But as the debate over free speech grew and grew, I started to think I was using the burning world as an excuse to avoid personal discomfort.

From my (privileged) vantage point, several things are happening simultaneously. The mass uprising following the killing of George Floyd has led to a necessary expansion of the boundaries of mainstream speech. Space has been created for daring left-wing ideas, like abolishing the police, that were once marginalized. Cultural institutions are reckoning with the racism that leads to mostly white leadership.

At the same time, a climate of punitive heretic-hunting, a recurrent feature of left-wing politics, has set in, enforced, in some cases, through workplace discipline, including firings. It’s the involvement of human resources departments in compelling adherence with rapidly changing new norms of speech and debate that worries me the most.

In her scathing rejoinder to the Letter in The Atlantic, Hannah Giorgis wrote, “Facing widespread criticism on Twitter, undergoing an internal workplace review, or having one’s book panned does not, in fact, erode one’s constitutional rights or endanger a liberal society.”

This sentence brought me up short; one of these things is not like the others. Anyone venturing ideas in public should be prepared to endure negative reviews and pushback on social media. Internal workplace reviews are something else. If people fear for their livelihoods for relatively minor ideological transgressions, it may not violate the Constitution — the workplace is not the state — but it does create a climate of self-censorship and grudging conformity.

One of the more egregious recent examples of left-wing illiberalism is the firing of David Shor, a data analyst at the progressive consulting firm Civis Analytics. Amid the protests over Floyd’s killing, Shor was called out online for tweeting about work by Omar Wasow, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton, that shows a link between violent protest in the 1960s and Richard Nixon’s vote share.

Shor was accused of “anti-Blackness” for seeming to suggest, via Wasow’s research, that violent protest is counterproductive. (Wasow is Black.) “At least some employees and clients of Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety,” reported New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait. After an internal review, Shor was let go; he was also kicked off a progressive industry listserv.

Civis has denied that Shor was fired for a tweet, but an employee told The Atlantic’s Yascha Mounk that the company’s chief executive said, in a staff meeting, “something along the lines of freedom of speech is important, but he had to take a stand with our staff, clients, and people of color.”

It should be said that many people on the left, including some who are often dismissive of the idea of left-wing illiberalism, condemned Shor’s firing. Surely one reason this episode has been invoked so often is that there aren’t many comparable examples of such obvious social justice overreach.

Still, there’s no question that many people feel intimidated. John McWhorter, an associate professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia who signed the Harper’s Letter, told me that in recent days he’s heard from over 100 graduate students and professors, most of them left of center, who fear for their professional prospects if they get on the wrong side of left-wing opinion.

Some on the left have argued, fairly, that those worried about people losing their jobs for running afoul of progressive orthodoxies should do more to strengthen labor protections, since all sorts of employees are vulnerable to capricious termination.

In a much-discussed essay on what he called “reactionary liberalism,” The New Republic’s Osita Nwanevu wrote, “In practice, workers of all stripes often lack the means and opportunity to defend themselves from unjust firings⁠ — all the more reason for those preoccupied with ‘cancel culture’ and social media-driven dismissals to support just-cause provisions and an end to at-will employment.”

This is true; as Zaid Jilani wrote recently, “If it were harder for employers to fire people for frivolous reasons, Americans would have less reason to fear that expressing their views might cost them their livelihoods.” But it seems strange to me to argue that in the absence of better labor law, the left is justified in taking advantage of precarity to punish people for political disagreements.

None of this is an argument for a totally laissez-faire approach to speech; some ideas should be stigmatized.

I recently spoke to Wasow about the reaction to Shor tweeting his paper. “Much of what we call ‘cancel culture’ is just culture,” he said. “Culture has boundaries. Every community has boundaries. Those boundaries are always shifting. In the age of the internet, they move faster, and therefore where those boundaries are is less clear and less stable, and it makes it easier for people to cross those lines.”

But it’s a problem when the range of proscribed speech is so wide that the rules are hard to even explain to those not steeped in left-wing mores.

Writing in the 1990s, at a time when feminists like Catharine MacKinnon sought to curtail free speech in the name of equality, the great left-libertarian Ellen Willis described how progressive movements sow the seeds of their own destruction when they become censorious. It’s impossible, Willis wrote, “to censor the speech of the dominant without stifling debate among all social groups and reinforcing orthodoxy within left movements. Under such conditions a movement can neither integrate new ideas nor build support based on genuine transformations of consciousness rather than guilt or fear of ostracism.”

It’s not always easy to draw a clear line between what Willis described as “reinforcing orthodoxy” and agitating to make language and society more democratic and inclusive. As Nicholas Grossman pointed out in Arc Digital, most signatories to the Letter probably agree that it’s a good thing that the casual use of racist and homophobic slurs are no longer socially acceptable. “But those changes came about through private sanction, social pressure and cultural change, driven by activists and younger generations,” he wrote.

Willis reminds us that when these changes were happening, the right denounced them as violations of free expression. Of the conservative campaign against political correctness in the 1990s, she wrote, “Predictably, their valid critique of left authoritarianism has segued all too smoothly into a campaign of moral intimidation,” one “aimed at demonizing egalitarian ideas, per se, as repressive.”

The same is happening today; the president throws tantrums about “cancel culture” while regularly trying to use the power of the state to quash speech he dislikes. Because Trump poisons everything he touches, his movement’s hypocritical embrace of the mantle of free speech threatens to devalue it, turning it into the rhetorical equivalent of “All Lives Matter.”

But to let this occur is to surrender what has historically been a sacred left-wing value. One reason many on the right want to be seen as free speech defenders is that they understand that the power to break taboos can be even more potent than the power to create them. Even sympathetic people will come to resent a left that refuses to make distinctions between deliberate slurs, awkward mistakes and legitimate disagreements. Cowing people is not the same as converting them."

[wgdsr]

zero government services or money coming in (which would mean there's actually no federal govt i guess) is not socialism.

Let's make sure we're all using the actual definition of socialism.

Socialism: noun. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

In the context of this conversation, the University of Florida is owned and controlled by the State. Therefore, it is a socialized entity.

We can have, and do have, private Universities, owned and operated by private organizations. Petey says he things socialism is bad. But if you ask Petey why, then, did you attend a socialized institute of higher learning? Why not attend his favored school, Loyola...a private school, then?

He can't answer that question.

people putting x? amount of their income/resources/ownership into a big pot for services y? galore is one part of a definition for socialism.

Incorrect. You can put your resources into attending, say, Princeton. That's not socialism.

The entire definition of the word is ENTIRELY dependent on: who owns and operates the entity?

So for example, the US government owns Federal land. It can issue mining or water rights for said land to private firms. That's not socialism because while it is owned by the State, it is not operated by the State.

However, in the case of YellowStone? The State owns and operates that land for the people----that's socialism.

Princeton: not socialism. Owned and operated by a private entity.

So to answer you question, Petey attended the University of Florida, which is owned and operated by the State. Socialism. And U of Florida is funded, in part, by my Federal tax dollars. Easy to understand.

it sounds like you want everyone to abide by your definition of socialism.
or what's the line?
is it socialism if there is ownership of something? even if it's the taxpayer themself that's funding it (a florida resident/fam)? so he doesn't get a benefit to funding it himself? or it's socialism and he has to admit... even though he funded it... that he's not allowed to share in the benefit he funded?

how are you paying for florida schools when your state gets billions back per year more than florida does on a relative basis?

it would seem florida could do just fine funding their public universities if they got an additional 5 billion dollars back per year if they got the same return colorado does. (those are rough figures and from one source each, likely off but the point is the same). they could fund their schools and have an additional 4 bill + to cut taxes or fund stuff in state if they weren't subsidizing your taxes and services in colorado.

or again... correct my math. how you are paying for florida schools?

[Farfromgeneva]

… I think the point is, the Colorado resident is not complaining about a little bit of socialism.

what is the line on socialism?

… you'll have to translate that question

zero government services or money coming in (which would mean there's actually no federal govt i guess) is not socialism.

people putting x? amount of their income/resources/ownership into a big pot for services y? galore is one part of a definition for socialism.

what's the x and y? isn't that what we're talking about? everyone's definition of x and y? or is there a set line? i know it's not zero, so where's the line?

does everyone have to have the same line?

No but there’s not much point having a legit conversation if definitions aren’t out on the table.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You keep using that word socialism. I don't think you know what it means

I just gave you the M-W Definition, six.

Would you prefer that this former English Major use the OED?

There is no definition you can give me where the University of Florida isn't an example of socialism. What's happening here is that you don't WANT the University of Florida to be an example of socialism, simply because YOU like it. You think it's good. "Therefore", it's not socialism.

That's not how it works, six. Sorry, my man. But please, by all means, tell us how the University of Florida isn't socialism.

Here is a state of Florida public employee:

https://thehayride.com/2020/01/uf-footb ... n-florida/

[a fan]

You keep using that word socialism. I don't think you know what it means

I just gave you the M-W Definition, six.

Would you prefer that this former English Major use the OED?

There is no definition you can give me where the University of Florida isn't an example of socialism. What's happening here is that you don't WANT the University of Florida to be an example of socialism, simply because YOU like it. You think it's good. "Therefore", it's not socialism.

That's not how it works, six. Sorry, my man. But please, by all means, tell us how the University of Florida isn't socialism.

Here is a state of Florida public employee:

https://thehayride.com/2020/01/uf-footb ... n-florida/

Case in point. 6ft and others think that this "doesn't count" as a public employee.

And the reason it "doesn't count". Simple. 6ftstick likes this aspect of socialism, but doesn't want to admit it. So he's going to pretend that Dan Mullen, head football coach at the University of Florida, isn't a State employee.

He won't hear of it. So in his mind, and in the minds of millions of SEC fans? The University of Alabama isn't a government owned and operated team.

Because it wrecks their entire worldview. I promise you that you could start a fight in the University of Alabama tailgate if you told fans that they are rooting for the government. Rooting for socialism. In their minds, the U of A "doesn't count" as government. Roll Tide.

[Farfromgeneva]

zero government services or money coming in (which would mean there's actually no federal govt i guess) is not socialism.

Let's make sure we're all using the actual definition of socialism.

Socialism: noun. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

In the context of this conversation, the University of Florida is owned and controlled by the State. Therefore, it is a socialized entity.

We can have, and do have, private Universities, owned and operated by private organizations. Petey says he things socialism is bad. But if you ask Petey why, then, did you attend a socialized institute of higher learning? Why not attend his favored school, Loyola...a private school, then?

He can't answer that question.

people putting x? amount of their income/resources/ownership into a big pot for services y? galore is one part of a definition for socialism.

Incorrect. You can put your resources into attending, say, Princeton. That's not socialism.

The entire definition of the word is ENTIRELY dependent on: who owns and operates the entity?

So for example, the US government owns Federal land. It can issue mining or water rights for said land to private firms. That's not socialism because while it is owned by the State, it is not operated by the State.

However, in the case of YellowStone? The State owns and operates that land for the people----that's socialism.

Princeton: not socialism. Owned and operated by a private entity.

So to answer you question, Petey attended the University of Florida, which is owned and operated by the State. Socialism. And U of Florida is funded, in part, by my Federal tax dollars. Easy to understand.

it sounds like you want everyone to abide by your definition of socialism.
or what's the line?
is it socialism if there is ownership of something? even if it's the taxpayer themself that's funding it (a florida resident/fam)? so he doesn't get a benefit to funding it himself? or it's socialism and he has to admit... even though he funded it... that he's not allowed to share in the benefit he funded?

how are you paying for florida schools when your state gets billions back per year more than florida does on a relative basis?

it would seem florida could do just fine funding their public universities if they got an additional 5 billion dollars back per year if they got the same return colorado does. (those are rough figures and from one source each, likely off but the point is the same). they could fund their schools and have an additional 4 bill + to cut taxes or fund stuff in state if they weren't subsidizing your taxes and services in colorado.

or again... correct my math. how you are paying for florida schools?

I’ve had this issue w Afan though in agreement in principle often that it’s extreme as someone who spent a lot of time focused on macroeconomic and political economic theory. That isn’t by many economists the definition of socialism, has elements of it but far too obtuse to be truly accurate.

The problem I have when AF goes there is that it’s a weak argument when I think the point is this person and a few others whine and toss the term “socialism” like a pejorative bomb every time anyone suggests any change (increase) in govt funding/support yet takes still advantage of many government sponsored/funded programs all day and night. It’s hypocritical, selfish and wrong and what they really say by their words combined with their actions is “I want mine, but how dare you ask for anything”.

If one believes welfare is a net advantage for the left and urban/inner city, how the F**K are they ok with ag subsidies which are a transfer to rural/often on the right (and some ag corporations)? Florida benefits greatly from Sugar subsidies (trade tariffs w Brazil) and is a large part of the reason ethanol is more expensive, inefficient and corn based here.

So I think what he’s driving at is the hypocrisy but tossing the socialism as any form of government wealth transfer definition around it gets lost.

My two cents. I’ll go back to incendiary stuff and funny links now.

[CU77]

can you explain how you are paying for florida schools? i don't get it.

The University of Florida received $776.2 million in research funding in fiscal year 2019.

About 68 percent of UF’s total funding came from the federal government, which awarded $526.8 million. Another $41.2 million came from the state, along with $54.4 million from industry and $99.1 million from foundations and non-profit organizations.

https://news.ufl.edu/2019/08/research-awards-2019/

And what they don't say is that the university takes 50% off the top for "overhead" before one dime goes to actual research expenses (which are mostly salaries of STEM grad students and postdocs).

https://research.ufl.edu/dsp/proposals/ ... s-idc.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

You keep using that word socialism. I don't think you know what it means

I just gave you the M-W Definition, six.

Would you prefer that this former English Major use the OED?

There is no definition you can give me where the University of Florida isn't an example of socialism. What's happening here is that you don't WANT the University of Florida to be an example of socialism, simply because YOU like it. You think it's good. "Therefore", it's not socialism.

That's not how it works, six. Sorry, my man. But please, by all means, tell us how the University of Florida isn't socialism.

Here is a state of Florida public employee:

https://thehayride.com/2020/01/uf-footb ... n-florida/

Case in point. 6ft and others think that this "doesn't count" as a public employee.

And the reason it "doesn't count". Simple. 6ftstick likes this aspect of socialism, but doesn't want to admit it. So he's going to pretend that Dan Mullen, head football coach at the University of Florida, isn't a State employee.

He won't hear of it. So in his mind, and in the minds of millions of SEC fans? The University of Alabama isn't a government owned and operated team.

Because it wrecks their entire worldview. I promise you that you could start a fight in the University of Alabama tailgate if you told fans that they are rooting for the government. Rooting for socialism. In their minds, the U of A "doesn't count" as government. Roll Tide.

What would the “in state” tuition and room and board be if U of Florida were not a “state” school? More or less?

[a fan]

it sounds like you want everyone to abide by your definition of socialism.

What? I gave you the M-W definition, my man. I'd give you the Oxford English Dictionary, but there's a paywall.

or what's the line?

I gave you the EXACT definition. It's about who owns and operates the entity in question. And I gave you specific examples.

You don't get to come back and act like I'm making it up. It's an INSANELY simple definition. Want more examples? No problem.

My distillery? Owned by my brother and I, an LLC. Operated by my brother and I. Not socialism.

The Fire Department that services our building? Owned by the County of Denver. Operated by the County of Denver. Socialism.

The Federal land a few miles away that has fracking rigs? Owned by the Federal government. Fracking operated by private firms. Not socialism.


It's about who owns and operates an entity. That's it. You guys are adding in how the entity is funded----that has zero, zilch, zippo, to do with the definition.

is it socialism if there is ownership of something? even if it's the taxpayer themself that's funding it (a florida resident/fam)? so he doesn't get a benefit to funding it himself? or it's socialism and he has to admit... even though he funded it... that he's not allowed to share in the benefit he funded?

If it is owned and operated by the State, as the University of Florida is? Yep. That's socialism. Who pays for it is immaterial.

how are you paying for florida schools when your state gets billions back per year more than florida does on a relative basis?

.
As of 2019, Florida gets $1.12 for every $1.00 they send to the Federal Government.

Colorado? $.97. But that's just because of fracking. That number will change for 2020 because of the oil crash.

Notice that my man CradleandShoot up in New York if floating the whole country? So he's got a right to be mad. This is the flyover America game (and includes my homestate): keep State taxes low, and let the other sucker States pay to keep the lights on. Notice Alabama gets $2 for every $1 they put in?

It's why I've said pretty please, with sugar on top: pass a balanced budget Amendment. And watch most States fall apart completely. Rural America is 1000% dependent on Federal----Federal----spending.

And of course, this leaves out all the new Trump spending that has yet to hit. Why do you think McConnell and Trump borrowed about $5 Trillion and handed it out throughout flyover America? Because with that borrowed money? The majority of States would completely fall apart. Depression.


https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal ... ts-portal/

it would seem florida could do just fine funding their public universities if they got an additional 5 billion dollars back per year if they got the same return colorado does. (those are rough figures and from one source each, likely off but the point is the same). they could fund their schools and have an additional 4 bill + to cut taxes or fund stuff in state if they weren't subsidizing your taxes and services in colorado.

You're forgetting Medicare, where seniors pull out $3 for every $1 they put in. How many Medicare recipients do you suppose live in FLA?

[wgdsr]

can you explain how you are paying for florida schools? i don't get it.

The University of Florida received $776.2 million in research funding in fiscal year 2019.

About 68 percent of UF’s total funding came from the federal government, which awarded $526.8 million. Another $41.2 million came from the state, along with $54.4 million from industry and $99.1 million from foundations and non-profit organizations.

https://news.ufl.edu/2019/08/research-awards-2019/

thanks for details. so i'd gather if florida was offered colorado's return on federal funds and would have an extra ~5 billion annually to play with, they'd take the trade off to not get 527 million directed @ the schools specifically.

[a fan]

can you explain how you are paying for florida schools? i don't get it.

The University of Florida received $776.2 million in research funding in fiscal year 2019.

About 68 percent of UF’s total funding came from the federal government, which awarded $526.8 million. Another $41.2 million came from the state, along with $54.4 million from industry and $99.1 million from foundations and non-profit organizations.

https://news.ufl.edu/2019/08/research-awards-2019/

thanks for details. so i'd gather if florida was offered colorado's return on federal funds and would have an extra ~5 billion annually to play with, they'd take the trade off to not get 527 million directed @ the schools specifically.

You're not adding in all the stuff Florida is getting!

BTW, my State, outside of a year of two of luck from fracking, takes more than it gets! I'm not saying we don't!

Why do you think we're running a massive deficit? We're taking more then we are sending to DC. That's how it works?

Pull that money away, and balance the Federal Budget? They'll cut the firetruck out of spending in FLA and CO.

But don't forget the context: Pete is the one claiming that socialism and Big Government spending is bad....not yours truly.

[wgdsr]

it sounds like you want everyone to abide by your definition of socialism.

What? I gave you the M-W definition, my man. I'd give you the Oxford English Dictionary, but there's a paywall.

or what's the line?

I gave you the EXACT definition. It's about who owns and operates the entity in question. And I gave you specific examples.

You don't get to come back and act like I'm making it up. It's an INSANELY simple definition. Want more examples? No problem.

My distillery? Owned by my brother and I, an LLC. Operated by my brother and I. Not socialism.

The Fire Department that services our building? Owned by the County of Denver. Operated by the County of Denver. Socialism.

The Federal land a few miles away that has fracking rigs? Owned by the Federal government. Fracking operated by private firms. Not socialism.


It's about who owns and operates an entity. That's it. You guys are adding in how the entity is funded----that has zero, zilch, zippo, to do with the definition.

is it socialism if there is ownership of something? even if it's the taxpayer themself that's funding it (a florida resident/fam)? so he doesn't get a benefit to funding it himself? or it's socialism and he has to admit... even though he funded it... that he's not allowed to share in the benefit he funded?

If it is owned and operated by the State, as the University of Florida is? Yep. That's socialism. Who pays for it is immaterial.

how are you paying for florida schools when your state gets billions back per year more than florida does on a relative basis?

.
As of 2019, Florida gets $1.12 for every $1.00 they send to the Federal Government.

Colorado? $.97. But that's just because of fracking. That number will change for 2020 because of the oil crash.

Notice that my man CradleandShoot up in New York if floating the whole country? So he's got a right to be mad. This is the flyover America game (and includes my homestate): keep State taxes low, and let the other sucker States pay to keep the lights on. Notice Alabama gets $2 for every $1 they put in?

It's why I've said pretty please, with sugar on top: pass a balanced budget Amendment. And watch most States fall apart completely. Rural America is 1000% dependent on Federal----Federal----spending.

And of course, this leaves out all the new Trump spending that has yet to hit. Why do you think McConnell and Trump borrowed about $5 Trillion and handed it out throughout flyover America? Because with that borrowed money? The majority of States would completely fall apart. Depression.


https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal ... ts-portal/

it would seem florida could do just fine funding their public universities if they got an additional 5 billion dollars back per year if they got the same return colorado does. (those are rough figures and from one source each, likely off but the point is the same). they could fund their schools and have an additional 4 bill + to cut taxes or fund stuff in state if they weren't subsidizing your taxes and services in colorado.

You're forgetting Medicare, where seniors pull out $3 for every $1 they put in. How many Medicare recipients do you suppose live in FLA?

quite the cherry pick.
do you believe social security, which is a return of capital, belongs in the expenditure column? with all those seniors?

here are federal tax receipts and federal monies as part of state budgets: 2018ish
Fla - federal receipts 205+billion
federal aid - 26.8 billion
13.0%
CO - federal receipts 58.7 billion
federal aid - 9.1 billion
15.5%

majority is medicaid and chip. and then public infra, education, etc.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-bud ... overnments

like we all do, we utilize facts and figures that suit us. or our argument. what is the breakdown of the 240 and 55+ billion dollar "expenditures"? i didn't find it, but didn't read whole report.