The Grand Irony - college football is socialist

[utgibbs]

Once again, none of these things are specific to socialism. Socialism is a very distinct ideology with regards to its platforms. It is not that there is government enforcement, it is how it is enforced.

The government has laws concerning finance, approval of Corporations and the like; that doesn't make anything dealing with those aspects socialist, simply because it required government approval for foundation.

The BoT does not merely have power of attorney, they act as their own corporate board, as defined by their charter. They have complete control, and the bylaws are not subject to control by the government or by referendum, if it were possible in the state.

The BoT has full and independent control of the University, as noted in the charter. Full and complete Gibbs.

Futhermore, for an actual viewpoint on what would qualify as "socialism" with regards to post secondary education, we shall take a look at what the Socialist Party of the US says:



End of public funding to private schools? Gibbs how can that be? Surely the real socialized see public funding as socialism?

Take a look at the last. Free tuition to post secondary. Gibbs, how much did that pie chart link you posted say came from tuition and fees? Like a quarter?

Not very free Gibbs. Sorry, the real socialized disagree with your fake socialist interpretation.

College football isn't socialist, get over it. :hi:
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Sigh.

float, I don't know anything about the policies of the US Socialists. They certainly aren't the definition of socialism.

Everything you have described fits under the definition of socialism. The governor appoints the BoT. It's a land-grant university still beholden to different laws than those governing the private institutions in the State of Tennessee. It is directly supported by a tax rebate. Other institutions comprising Div I football teams are directly supported by tax dollars.

I know you are DESPERATE to rationalize it otherwise, but it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

College football is a socialist enterprise. Love it regardless! Go Big Orange!

 

[RockyTopVol]

Saban is a socialist!

 

[utvolpj]

so the money I willingly give to the UTAD goes to support what else? You could successfully argue that the UTAD is socialist because it's forced by the gov't but to say all of cfb is would be wrong

 

[fl0at]

Sigh.

I know you are DESPERATE to rationalize it otherwise, but it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

If the above statement you often make is true, you must be in loads of trouble both financially, politically and intellectually.

I am fully aware that you don't understand the socialist party of this country, or their views. That much is evident.

Please provide the definition of socialism, how it relates to UT and the AD that you do seem to understand. As we have already discussed your inability to comprehend the Webster's definition as well as your beloved Wikipedia, it makes perfect sense that you don't understand the US's socialist party definition.

1. The governor appoints the BoT.
Show me in the definition of socialism how this is in fact socialism and limited to socialism.

2. It's a land-grant university still beholden to different laws than those governing the private institutions in the State of Tennessee.
Again, show me in the definition of socialism how this is socialism and limited to socialism.

3. It is directly supported by a tax rebate. Other institutions comprising Div I football teams are directly supported by tax dollars.

A tax rebate is a REFUND. Deductions are not refunded, they are deducted from the total income prior to paying taxes. You receive a refund from the taxes paid, the deduction is from total income, not taxes paid. We've been through this before.

Which "other" Div I teams are supported by tax dollars?

Again, it is not what you don't know, it is what you do know that just ain't so. And for you, this seems to accompany simple economics and political theory.

I understand your need to rationalize that it is socialist, but relax man. It isn't, and that does not = a bad thing.

 

[MG1968]

stop feeding the 800lb. gorilla, please.

 

[fl0at]

You could successfully argue that the UTAD is socialist because it's forced by the gov't but to say all of cfb is would be wrong

The UTAD is not forced by the government, though. There are no laws on in Tennessee's code that specifically, or indirectly, requires an AD. It isn't even forced by the government, and nor is UT. There is no government mandate that there be a UT.

The land grant is merely a set of requirements necessary to receive the grant, exactly the same as the necessary requirements to receive any number of other services by private or public institutions.

It was not a mandate to BUILD a school, and was not a mandate that the school must accept, either. Gibbs is simply confused, thinking that the creation was government enforced, and it was not. This is why complete and full control of the University does not belong to the GA.

 

[utgibbs]

If the above statement you often make is true, you must be in loads of trouble both financially, politically and intellectually.

I am fully aware that you don't understand the socialist party of this country, or their views. That much is evident.

Please provide the definition of socialism, how it relates to UT and the AD that you do seem to understand. As we have already discussed your inability to comprehend the Webster's definition as well as your beloved Wikipedia, it makes perfect sense that you don't understand the US's socialist party definition.

1. The governor appoints the BoT.
Show me in the definition of socialism how this is in fact socialism and limited to socialism.

2. It's a land-grant university still beholden to different laws than those governing the private institutions in the State of Tennessee.
Again, show me in the definition of socialism how this is socialism and limited to socialism.

3. It is directly supported by a tax rebate. Other institutions comprising Div I football teams are directly supported by tax dollars.

A tax rebate is a REFUND. Deductions are not refunded, they are deducted from the total income prior to paying taxes. You receive a refund from the taxes paid, the deduction is from total income, not taxes paid. We've been through this before.

Which "other" Div I teams are supported by tax dollars?

Again, it is not what you don't know, it is what you do know that just ain't so. And for you, this seems to accompany simple economics and political theory.

I understand your need to rationalize that it is socialist, but relax man. It isn't, and that does not = a bad thing.

Tax deduction / tax rebate. You have now descended into quibbling to rationalize what is self-evident.

That other Div I ADs were supported by tax dollars was a direct statement in the UTAD annual report. Hambone bragged UTAD was one of 17 ADs not taking taxpayer dollars. Of course, it is taking taxpayer dollars in the form of a tax deduction (for what is obstensibly a profitable organization!)

It's over, Rock! College football is a socialist enterprise. No reason to hate it, rationalize it otherwise, or quibble about it. Go Big Socialist Orange!

 

[fl0at]

stop feeding the 800lb. gorilla, please.

I understand that his views are disingenuous and he is merely trolling, or gorilla'ing, but that does not mean that they should simply be ignored. I, however, simply cannot.

I have no idea why. Maybe the sheer idiocy of the entire thread has me to a point where too much time has been invested to simply let ridiculous statements go unnoticed.

Plus, the more time I spend in one thread, the less time I spend in 18 other threads, which means the more work I actually get done. It is a give and take.

 

[utgibbs]

so the money I willingly give to the UTAD goes to support what else? You could successfully argue that the UTAD is socialist because it's forced by the gov't but to say all of cfb is would be wrong

utvolpj,

1. Most of the Div I schools are land-grant universities founded by the federal and state government.

2. All of the have responsibilities under the Morrill Act and all subsequent legislation.

3. Our own UTAD claims it is 1 of 17 AD in profit and not taking direct payments from the taxpayer (although it does receive a significant amount of income thanks largely to a tax deduction; and, if we believe float - it's a profitable PRIVATE company.)

4. The BoT in direct control of these affairs is appointed by the Governor of Tennessee.

5. The BoT was constituted by the General Assembly.

6. The UTAD does not distribute funds to shareholders / private owners.

Uh, it's socialism. It's worked damn well. Go Big Orange! :good!:

 

[fl0at]

Tax deduction / tax rebate. You have now descended into quibbling to rationalize what is self-evident.

That other Div I ADs were supported by tax dollars was a direct statement in the UTAD annual report. Hambone bragged UTAD was one of 17 ADs not taking taxpayer dollars. Of course, it is taking taxpayer dollars in the form of a tax deduction (for what is obstensibly a profitable organization!)

Quibbling? Oh really. Ok, well, why don't you not deduct your children this year on your return, and then go and "quibble" with the IRS over your refund. How do you think that would play out, Gibbs?

I will concede, however unlikely, that other ADs are taking tax dollars from the State. And why don't you explain how that is inherently socialism?

You continue to fail to answer questions. What are you afraid of?

 

[IPorange]

If only this thread had more graphics.

 

[BeecherVol]

If only this thread had more graphics.

Patience.

 

[utvolpj]

The UTAD is not forced by the government, though. There are no laws on in Tennessee's code that specifically, or indirectly, requires an AD. It isn't even forced by the government, and nor is UT. There is no government mandate that there be a UT.

The land grant is merely a set of requirements necessary to receive the grant, exactly the same as the necessary requirements to receive any number of other services by private or public institutions.

It was not a mandate to BUILD a school, and was not a mandate that the school must accept, either. Gibbs is simply confused, thinking that the creation was government enforced, and it was not. This is why complete and full control of the University does not belong to the GA.

my point was more around how the AD's are forced to distribute money to sports out of equality (title 9) rather than revenue production

If only this thread had more graphics.

like a graph without defining the X or Y and claim victory?

 

[utgibbs]

I understand that his views are disingenuous and he is merely trolling, or gorilla'ing, but that does not mean that they should simply be ignored. I, however, simply cannot.

I have no idea why. Maybe the sheer idiocy of the entire thread has me to a point where too much time has been invested to simply let ridiculous statements go unnoticed.

Plus, the more time I spend in one thread, the less time I spend in 18 other threads, which means the more work I actually get done. It is a give and take.

My views are far from disingenuous (as that would be easier to ignore). I don't think you're views are disingenuous either.

However, EVERYTHING you have posted has demonstrated the UTAD is a socialist institution. And it's got to the point where :facepalm: doesn't summarize how thoroughly confused you are. It seems with each new post you added strength to my argument with "the freakin' governor appoints the BoT" being by far the coup de grace.

 

[fl0at]

My views are far from disingenuous (as that would be easier to ignore). I don't think you're views are disingenuous either.

However, EVERYTHING you have posted has demonstrated the UTAD is a socialist institution. And it's got to the point where :facepalm: doesn't summarize how thoroughly confused you are. It seems with each new post you added strength to my argument with "the freakin' governor appoints the BoT" being by far the coup de grace.

And yet, you have still failed to explain how appointment by the governor is socialist. Please cite precedent though the years of history of socialism that this is indeed a specific socialist trait.

 

[utgibbs]

Quibbling? Oh really. Ok, well, why don't you not deduct your children this year on your return, and then go and "quibble" with the IRS over your refund. How do you think that would play out, Gibbs?

I will concede, however unlikely, that other ADs are taking tax dollars from the State. And why don't you explain how that is inherently socialism?

You continue to fail to answer questions. What are you afraid of?

Float, it was to try to help you grasp what you are clearly not grasping. I thought the "tax dollars" would throw a switch for you. Given how Hambone played it up in the annual report, I figured it might throw a switch.

It's hard NOT to call something socialist which receives so much direct support from the government. That's why, even in the United States, we would be considered to have a mixed economy. Certainly not like the classic mixed economies of Europe, but mixed nonetheless. GM being the obvious example, but if we recall the words of Judge Doom from WFRR - it took a hell of a lot of government subsidies to make the car industry in the first place.

And yet, GM and the car companies are STILL far different entities in form and structure than the socialist UTAD.

College football is a socialist enterprise. Go Big Orange!

 

[utgibbs]

my point was more around how the AD's are forced to distribute money to sports out of equality (title 9) rather than revenue production



like a graph without defining the X or Y and claim victory?

UTAD takes $1M out of student fees to support Title IX.

It does really matter though. Its genesis, its current structure, its legal standing is why its a socialist institution - not because it does or does not make profits. But Title IX is a great example of how it has different, social responsibilities it has to uphold.

This should be the nail in the coffin for everyone: why do you get your donation less the value of the tickets off in taxes to support a profitable private institution?

 

[fl0at]

It's hard NOT to call something socialist which receives so much direct support from the government. That's why, even in the United States, we would be considered to have a mixed economy.

And yet, GM and the car companies are STILL far different entities in form and structure than the socialist UTAD.

Again, not a trait specific to socialism. There is no public ownership of UT, there is no common ownership of UT and no cooperative management. These are the specific traits of socialism.

Simply saying something is socialist while ignoring the SPECIFICS that make something socialist, does not make it so.

I can swing a club, I know an iron from a wood. That does not make me a golfer.

The specifics are what differ one political theory from another, and you are ignoring the specifics.

 

[fl0at]

This should be the nail in the coffin for everyone: why do you get your donation less the value of the tickets off in taxes to support a profitable private institution?

Because Federal law allows for it, which has nothing to do with UT, period.

 

[utvolpj]

UTAD takes $1M out of student fees to support Title IX.

It does really matter though. Its genesis, its current structure, its legal standing is why its a socialist institution - not because it does or does not make profits. But Title IX is a great example of how it has different, social responsibilities it has to uphold.

I said things like title 9 and non-revenue producing sports. Title 9 is not done out of the goodness of the AD's heart but by ridiculous gov't mandate

This should be the nail in the coffin for everyone: why do you get your donation less the value of the tickets off in taxes to support a profitable private institution?

you make the assumption that the everyone donates to get a deduction. And is that a UT thing or a gov't thing?

 

[StepCross]

There is no public ownership of UT...

There are an awful lot of red herrings in this thread, but to me the above is really the only question.

Does it have a clear answer?

Who DOES own UT?

 

[fl0at]

There are an awful lot of red herrings in this thread, but to me the above is really the only question.

Does it have a clear answer?

Who DOES own UT?

This has been covered, but I'll bite. I'll start by asking: Who owns Exxon? It is a simple question at first, but not legally or economically. Is it the shareholders, or whom? In US law, I do believe, a Corporation is a citizen. Odd, but true.

So, as a citizen, who owns you?

Moving on: UT is a corporation. They are controlled by the BoT. Much like Exxon is controlled by its BoD. Both are chartered.

Does the BoD own Exxon? No, they are merely a governing body.

Does the BoT own UT? No, they are merely a governing body.

So, who owns UT? The weird answer is that UT owns UT, like you own yourself, and Exxon owns Exxon.

The other answer is that stakeholders own UT, which would be anyone who has a vested interest in UT: the employees, the students, the State, the banks, the lenders, ESPN, CBS, the SEC, yada yada.

But, as a person, UT can be sued, just like you can be sued. Same goes with Exxon; so who pays if UT or Exxon is sued?

The State? No.

Everyone else? Indirectly.

UT's personal funds: Absolutely.

It is an easy question to ask who owns UT, but the answer is isn't easy.

 

[utgibbs]

I said things like title 9 and non-revenue producing sports. Title 9 is not done out of the goodness of the AD's heart but by ridiculous gov't mandate

Because it is beholden to certain social functions. Title 9 is not ridiculous.

you make the assumption that the everyone donates to get a deduction. And is that a UT thing or a gov't thing?
You make the assumption I'm going to answer quibbling. Quibbling is always boring and never cool.

I thought I answered this earlier, but see again.

 

[utgibbs]

There are an awful lot of red herrings in this thread, but to me the above is really the only question.

Does it have a clear answer?

Who DOES own UT?

There are a lot of red herrings, and I'm guilty of one of them.

The State of Tennessee owns UT, and its affairs are handled in full by the governor appointed BoT.

It's really that simple, and was answered long ago. I admit the "tax dollars" was what I hoped would prove the vital switch to help others understand what is very obvious.

It failed.

 

[fl0at]

The State of Tennessee owns UT, and its affairs are handled in full by the governor appointed BoT.

It's really that simple, and was answered long ago. I admit the "tax dollars" was what I hoped would prove the vital switch to help others understand what is very obvious.

It failed.

Gibbs, last questions I'm going to ask, feel free to ignore them like all the rest.

When the Louisiana Purchase was made, it was purchased with Federal funds. Territories were created, which were later allowed to apply for statehood, and subject to approval by the Federal government.

Are the States created from the land from the Louisiana Purchase socialist States?
Posted via VolNation Mobile