|
Post by atownbeaver on Mar 13, 2024 22:26:42 GMT -8
We've been taking millions a year from the Oregon tax payers for decades. This is nothing new. State of Oregon is roughly $70 billion in total funds per year, of that, $20 billion in tax payer general funds. OSU is getting 0.014% of the budget. One and a half one hundredths of one percent. Of only the tax payer funds the state collects, 0.05%, five hundredths of one percent. It is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 14, 2024 10:58:25 GMT -8
We've been taking millions a year from the Oregon tax payers for decades. This is nothing new. That's generally how public schools work. Funded by the taxpayers to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Mar 18, 2024 23:53:32 GMT -8
We've been taking millions a year from the Oregon tax payers for decades. This is nothing new. That's generally how public schools work. Funded by the taxpayers to some extent. The UO infrequently requires the tax payers of the state to cover their deficits. That's the point. We operate in the red 85% of the time and are now complaining about not getting more money from the other programs who actually earn money.
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Mar 18, 2024 23:54:35 GMT -8
We've been taking millions a year from the Oregon tax payers for decades. This is nothing new. State of Oregon is roughly $70 billion in total funds per year, of that, $20 billion in tax payer general funds. OSU is getting 0.014% of the budget. One and a half one hundredths of one percent. Of only the tax payer funds the state collects, 0.05%, five hundredths of one percent. It is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. lul, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and some hated in state rival were the one who has taken near 9 figure millions from the state in the last 20 years. You'd be singing a different tune.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Mar 19, 2024 4:14:46 GMT -8
That's generally how public schools work. Funded by the taxpayers to some extent. The UO infrequently requires the tax payers of the state to cover their deficits. That's the point. We operate in the red 85% of the time and are now complaining about not getting more money from the other programs who actually earn money. If by “earning money”, you mean Phil’s donations.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 19, 2024 9:45:01 GMT -8
State of Oregon is roughly $70 billion in total funds per year, of that, $20 billion in tax payer general funds. OSU is getting 0.014% of the budget. One and a half one hundredths of one percent. Of only the tax payer funds the state collects, 0.05%, five hundredths of one percent. It is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. lul, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and some hated in state rival were the one who has taken near 9 figure millions from the state in the last 20 years. You'd be singing a different tune. Many, many, many states help fund intercollegiate athletics, either through tuition waivers, specific sales taxes, matching funds or direct appropriations. Oregon has long been behind the curve. The actions of one state entity (UO) had a direct, adverse financial impact on another (OSU). We are entitled some form of compensation. It's state law. You seldom seemed pleased with any aspect of OSU athletics, even the good things that happen, like this appropriation, which had bipartisan support from both chambers of the state legislature. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 19, 2024 16:28:52 GMT -8
lul, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and some hated in state rival were the one who has taken near 9 figure millions from the state in the last 20 years. You'd be singing a different tune. Many, many, many states help fund intercollegiate athletics, either through tuition waivers, specific sales taxes, matching funds or direct appropriations. Oregon has long been behind the curve. The actions of one state entity (UO) had a direct, adverse financial impact on another (OSU). We are entitled some form of compensation. It's state law. You seldom seemed pleased with any aspect of OSU athletics, even the good things that happen, like this appropriation, which had bipartisan support from both chambers of the state legislature. Why is that? Money well-spent IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Mar 19, 2024 17:18:10 GMT -8
State of Oregon is roughly $70 billion in total funds per year, of that, $20 billion in tax payer general funds. OSU is getting 0.014% of the budget. One and a half one hundredths of one percent. Of only the tax payer funds the state collects, 0.05%, five hundredths of one percent. It is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. lul, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and some hated in state rival were the one who has taken near 9 figure millions from the state in the last 20 years. You'd be singing a different tune. Why would I be upset that a publicly funded university in this state takes state funds? There is a large differential in what OSU gets from the state (~$271 million per year) compared to UofO (about $90 million). Their are a lot of reasons, across a dozen different programs and funds and all that, but it all boils down to one really simple overall theme: OSU does way more stuff. We have 10,000 more students on a bigger campus with more degrees, more research and of course, multiple extension services and off campus facilities that UofO simply does not have. OSU is also significantly integrated with state interests in land management, forestry, agriculture, and fish and wildlife, which brings in a huge amount of extra state funding. In other words, the state pays OSU to manage state things, and in doing so, OSU also gets to awards degrees to students in the things they manage. Oregon State has one of the best Forestry programs in the nation. Oregon has a lot of Forests too. Imagine that. Of course I could see how a U of O person would be upset at the general numbers. OSU gets 3x the state funds. But I also believe a U of O grad probably would have a hard time understanding that OSU does 3x (or more) of the things U of O does. They aren't a research university, so numbers are probably hard for them. But they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me. As for athletic budget... well who gives a s%#t? Who literally cares, AT ALL, how much any university provides for athletics. Do you get mad at your local high school for funding all the sports they do? or do you expect the football car wash should pay for every uniform? Universities have sports for a lot of reasons, and they are all beneficial to not just the student athletes themselves, but the university. They is absolutely no denying the correlation between athletic success and enrollment and general public perception of the university. As such, there should be zero controversy, at all, about any university using general funds to support athletics. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the equitable thing to do. A directive that all universities should have self funded athletics is effectively a directive to eliminate all women's sports and most Men's sports that are not football and basketball. So after typing all this out... I suppose I still don't know what the f%#* point you were trying to make even was. OSU is a state funded public university, getting state funds. They got a special appropriation because of factors outside of their control resulted in a loss of a substantial amount of expected funding. I fail to see any controversy with this move at all. .
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Mar 19, 2024 17:18:42 GMT -8
The UO infrequently requires the tax payers of the state to cover their deficits. That's the point. We operate in the red 85% of the time and are now complaining about not getting more money from the other programs who actually earn money. If by “earning money”, you mean Phil’s donations. Over $2 billion in donations to be exact.
|
|
|
Post by beaverbeliever on Mar 19, 2024 20:44:22 GMT -8
I pay state taxes. I don't take advantage of many services paid for by state taxes. I sure do love OSU athletics, and so I have no problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 19, 2024 21:17:36 GMT -8
lul, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and some hated in state rival were the one who has taken near 9 figure millions from the state in the last 20 years. You'd be singing a different tune. Why would I be upset that a publicly funded university in this state takes state funds? There is a large differential in what OSU gets from the state (~$271 million per year) compared to UofO (about $90 million). Their are a lot of reasons, across a dozen different programs and funds and all that, but it all boils down to one really simple overall theme: OSU does way more stuff. We have 10,000 more students on a bigger campus with more degrees, more research and of course, multiple extension services and off campus facilities that UofO simply does not have. OSU is also significantly integrated with state interests in land management, forestry, agriculture, and fish and wildlife, which brings in a huge amount of extra state funding. In other words, the state pays OSU to manage state things, and in doing so, OSU also gets to awards degrees to students in the things they manage. Oregon State has one of the best Forestry programs in the nation. Oregon has a lot of Forests too. Imagine that. Of course I could see how a U of O person would be upset at the general numbers. OSU gets 3x the state funds. But I also believe a U of O grad probably would have a hard time understanding that OSU does 3x (or more) of the things U of O does. They aren't a research university, so numbers are probably hard for them. But they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me. As for athletic budget... well who gives a s%#t? Who literally cares, AT ALL, how much any university provides for athletics. Do you get mad at your local high school for funding all the sports they do? or do you expect the football car wash should pay for every uniform? Universities have sports for a lot of reasons, and they are all beneficial to not just the student athletes themselves, but the university. They is absolutely no denying the correlation between athletic success and enrollment and general public perception of the university. As such, there should be zero controversy, at all, about any university using general funds to support athletics. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the equitable thing to do. A directive that all universities should have self funded athletics is effectively a directive to eliminate all women's sports and most Men's sports that are not football and basketball. So after typing all this out... I suppose I still don't know what the f%#* point you were trying to make even was. OSU is a state funded public university, getting state funds. They got a special appropriation because of factors outside of their control resulted in a loss of a substantial amount of expected funding. I fail to see any controversy with this move at all. . “..they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me”. Third best (of 3) law school in the state. So go ahead and make fun of them.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 19, 2024 21:39:53 GMT -8
Why would I be upset that a publicly funded university in this state takes state funds? There is a large differential in what OSU gets from the state (~$271 million per year) compared to UofO (about $90 million). Their are a lot of reasons, across a dozen different programs and funds and all that, but it all boils down to one really simple overall theme: OSU does way more stuff. We have 10,000 more students on a bigger campus with more degrees, more research and of course, multiple extension services and off campus facilities that UofO simply does not have. OSU is also significantly integrated with state interests in land management, forestry, agriculture, and fish and wildlife, which brings in a huge amount of extra state funding. In other words, the state pays OSU to manage state things, and in doing so, OSU also gets to awards degrees to students in the things they manage. Oregon State has one of the best Forestry programs in the nation. Oregon has a lot of Forests too. Imagine that. Of course I could see how a U of O person would be upset at the general numbers. OSU gets 3x the state funds. But I also believe a U of O grad probably would have a hard time understanding that OSU does 3x (or more) of the things U of O does. They aren't a research university, so numbers are probably hard for them. But they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me. As for athletic budget... well who gives a s%#t? Who literally cares, AT ALL, how much any university provides for athletics. Do you get mad at your local high school for funding all the sports they do? or do you expect the football car wash should pay for every uniform? Universities have sports for a lot of reasons, and they are all beneficial to not just the student athletes themselves, but the university. They is absolutely no denying the correlation between athletic success and enrollment and general public perception of the university. As such, there should be zero controversy, at all, about any university using general funds to support athletics. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the equitable thing to do. A directive that all universities should have self funded athletics is effectively a directive to eliminate all women's sports and most Men's sports that are not football and basketball. So after typing all this out... I suppose I still don't know what the f%#* point you were trying to make even was. OSU is a state funded public university, getting state funds. They got a special appropriation because of factors outside of their control resulted in a loss of a substantial amount of expected funding. I fail to see any controversy with this move at all. “..they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me”. Third best (of 3) law school in the state. So go ahead and make fun of them. I got in to Willamette. I wasted far too much time to get Lewis & Clark Admissions to talk to Lewis & Clark Financial Aid, so I gave up. My application never made its way to Eugene.
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Mar 19, 2024 23:24:11 GMT -8
lul, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and some hated in state rival were the one who has taken near 9 figure millions from the state in the last 20 years. You'd be singing a different tune. Why would I be upset that a publicly funded university in this state takes state funds? There is a large differential in what OSU gets from the state (~$271 million per year) compared to UofO (about $90 million). Their are a lot of reasons, across a dozen different programs and funds and all that, but it all boils down to one really simple overall theme: OSU does way more stuff. We have 10,000 more students on a bigger campus with more degrees, more research and of course, multiple extension services and off campus facilities that UofO simply does not have. OSU is also significantly integrated with state interests in land management, forestry, agriculture, and fish and wildlife, which brings in a huge amount of extra state funding. In other words, the state pays OSU to manage state things, and in doing so, OSU also gets to awards degrees to students in the things they manage. Oregon State has one of the best Forestry programs in the nation. Oregon has a lot of Forests too. Imagine that. Of course I could see how a U of O person would be upset at the general numbers. OSU gets 3x the state funds. But I also believe a U of O grad probably would have a hard time understanding that OSU does 3x (or more) of the things U of O does. They aren't a research university, so numbers are probably hard for them. But they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me. As for athletic budget... well who gives a s%#t? Who literally cares, AT ALL, how much any university provides for athletics. Do you get mad at your local high school for funding all the sports they do? or do you expect the football car wash should pay for every uniform? Universities have sports for a lot of reasons, and they are all beneficial to not just the student athletes themselves, but the university. They is absolutely no denying the correlation between athletic success and enrollment and general public perception of the university. As such, there should be zero controversy, at all, about any university using general funds to support athletics. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the equitable thing to do. A directive that all universities should have self funded athletics is effectively a directive to eliminate all women's sports and most Men's sports that are not football and basketball. So after typing all this out... I suppose I still don't know what the f%#* point you were trying to make even was. OSU is a state funded public university, getting state funds. They got a special appropriation because of factors outside of their control resulted in a loss of a substantial amount of expected funding. I fail to see any controversy with this move at all. . Why is this so hard to understand? Because we've drained our tax payers for SPORTS and the other major state university has not. We're talking about athletic deficit, not f%#*ing public funding for the operation of the university. This is not hard to understand. The tax payers of the great state of Oregon subsidize our athletic programs. Again, you need to get a f%#*ing clue. It's not about being a publicly funded institution, it is about what those funds are used for. We take MILLIONS a year, almost every_single_year to fund the athletic department. We've been subsidized by the Pac conference and the state of Oregon for DECADES to fund athletics.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 20, 2024 5:21:40 GMT -8
Why would I be upset that a publicly funded university in this state takes state funds? There is a large differential in what OSU gets from the state (~$271 million per year) compared to UofO (about $90 million). Their are a lot of reasons, across a dozen different programs and funds and all that, but it all boils down to one really simple overall theme: OSU does way more stuff. We have 10,000 more students on a bigger campus with more degrees, more research and of course, multiple extension services and off campus facilities that UofO simply does not have. OSU is also significantly integrated with state interests in land management, forestry, agriculture, and fish and wildlife, which brings in a huge amount of extra state funding. In other words, the state pays OSU to manage state things, and in doing so, OSU also gets to awards degrees to students in the things they manage. Oregon State has one of the best Forestry programs in the nation. Oregon has a lot of Forests too. Imagine that. Of course I could see how a U of O person would be upset at the general numbers. OSU gets 3x the state funds. But I also believe a U of O grad probably would have a hard time understanding that OSU does 3x (or more) of the things U of O does. They aren't a research university, so numbers are probably hard for them. But they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me. As for athletic budget... well who gives a s%#t? Who literally cares, AT ALL, how much any university provides for athletics. Do you get mad at your local high school for funding all the sports they do? or do you expect the football car wash should pay for every uniform? Universities have sports for a lot of reasons, and they are all beneficial to not just the student athletes themselves, but the university. They is absolutely no denying the correlation between athletic success and enrollment and general public perception of the university. As such, there should be zero controversy, at all, about any university using general funds to support athletics. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the equitable thing to do. A directive that all universities should have self funded athletics is effectively a directive to eliminate all women's sports and most Men's sports that are not football and basketball. So after typing all this out... I suppose I still don't know what the f%#* point you were trying to make even was. OSU is a state funded public university, getting state funds. They got a special appropriation because of factors outside of their control resulted in a loss of a substantial amount of expected funding. I fail to see any controversy with this move at all. . Why is this so hard to understand? Because we've drained our tax payers for SPORTS and the other major state university has not. We're talking about athletic deficit, not f%#*ing public funding for the operation of the university. This is not hard to understand. The tax payers of the great state of Oregon subsidize our athletic programs. Again, you need to get a f%#*ing clue. It's not about being a publicly funded institution, it is about what those funds are used for. We take MILLIONS a year, almost every_single_year to fund the athletic department. We've been subsidized by the Pac conference and the state of Oregon for DECADES to fund athletics.
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Mar 20, 2024 6:18:55 GMT -8
If a super rich donor gives say 100 million to a university for its athletic program. This donor deducts this 100 million on his tax return as a donation. He saves 10 million on his oregon taxes. Is he doing good for the state of oregon because he donates 100 million to a specific university for athletics or is he costing the state of oregon 10 million that could be used in numerous ways in the state of oregon budget?
|
|