AOC wants free tuition? We can do it NOW!

[toms...@gmail.com]

Well, at least for some of the Ivy League schools like Harvard:

Tuition, fees, and room and board: $6,655

Number of undergrads: 6,655

Total undergrad cost: $449,744,900

Harvard Endowment INCOME: $1,800,000,000

Net Endowment Income AFTER covering undergrads expenses: $1,350,255,100

NO PROBLEM!

[DumbedDownUSA]

A falsehood.

--
“Don’t give up. If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through
it. Go over it. Go around it. But get to the other side of that wall.”
Donald Trump

[John B.]

Harvard only charges $6,655/year for tuition, room and board?
That would make it the cheapest private university in the U.S.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Isn't it?

Low earners can send theri kids there for free.

I have no idea what Syssy post is about but you can bet he probably
doesn't either.

It's just something he has copied from one of the right wing blogs in
his bubble.

[Alan Baker]

Hmmmm....

...no references...

...and you can't manage simple arithmetic.

[toms...@gmail.com]

OOPS! Repeated the number of students - costs are $67,580 per student. The rest is correct.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Lazy,

Try Google.

[Alan Baker]

Why?

Will it make your mistaken arithmetic suddenly correct?

:-)

[DumbedDownUSA]

OMG Syss's argument is so flawed it's hard to know where to begin...

whether the endowment figure... which isn't income but a distribution
from the fund chosen with regard to the total revenues which he is now
trying to offset against it. Further the trivial number of students...

Like all Syssy's posts a flawed premise, no argument, just another
demonstration of a troubled and unfocused mind at best illustrating why
he is capable of making so many poor decisions.

[DumbedDownUSA]

You suggested google to Alan, I used it, it's a shame you didn't.

If you want to understand why your own post is nonsense this should
help...

https://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/endowment

...a scientist worthy of the moniker should be able to comprehend his
error in seconds... it might take you a little longer but to be honest
I don't hold out much hope of you recognising your errors at all.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Sure if double accounting is not a problem.

An endowment is like the exact opposite of a deficit, if you ever get
to grasp what you got wrong here and understand how the distribution
from the endowment actually figures, should think about that.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Lazy,

CHECK IT for yourself!

Tuition, fees, and room and board: $67,580

[Alan Baker]

So you've basically proven that you can't do arithmetic. Thanks!

[DumbedDownUSA]

No. it is the cost to undergrads. It is a revenue stream for the
university.

> Harvard Endowment INCOME: $1,800,000,000
>
> Net Endowment Income AFTER covering undergrads expenses:
> $1,350,255,100

Wrong. It is not "Endowment income". It is the distribution of funds
from the endowment. Another revenue stream.

If you remove one revenue stream it must be replaced by another
otherwise you cannot balance the books.

So for example you would have to add the $450m to the $1.8billion
meaning you would need $2.25Billion from the endowment to cover the
reduced revenue. An amount that may not be sustainable.

Not that sustainablity is important to someone who can't grasp the
fundamentals of a deficit.

As the link I posted illustrated very clearly the revenue streams
include:

The distribution from the endowment
Student income
Sponsored support
Gifts
Other

What Syssy is doing here is trying to spend the same money twice. He
wants to take away the student income and claims the endowment which is
already committed will somehow cover the shortfall.

I think Syssy is just proving he is incapable of any research or
analysis.

What did he claim his job was again? Taking out the trash for the real
scientists?

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Lazy,

The arithmetic is perfect - you must be illiterate.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Yet actual income from students is around $1 billion.

> > > Harvard Endowment INCOME: $1,800,000,000
> > >
> > > Net Endowment Income AFTER covering undergrads expenses:
> > > $1,350,255,100
> > >

Here's some help for the retard.

Required money from endowment to cover additional costs he details

$1,800,000,000
$ 449,744,900
_______________

$2,249,744,900

Approximately 43% of the actual operating revenue.

> >
> > So you've basically proven that you can't do arithmetic. Thanks!
>
> Hey Lazy,
>
> The arithmetic is perfect - you must be illiterate.

Wrong.

The arithmetic is flawed.

1+4 != 3

You are ignorant.

[Alan Baker]

The arithmetic in your original post was NOT perfect.

It was so FAR from perfect that anyone of even modest intelligence
should have looked at what he had wrote and seen it had to be wrong.

:-)

[-hh]

On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 1:09:45 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> ...

> The arithmetic in your original post was NOT perfect.
>
> It was so FAR from perfect that anyone of even modest intelligence
> should have looked at what he had wrote and seen it had to be wrong.
> :-)

Well, perhaps one should provide some consideration for anyone who
struggled in college back in the '60s, since one motivation was to
get a deferment from getting drafted to Vietnam.

It beats the alternative of using a MD's note that they can't serve
because of bone spurs which will forever prevent them from walking
a golf course ... or as was the case for another Tom who Alan & I know,
because of a "broken pee pee".


-hh

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Lazy,

And your point is? That Harvard CAN'T afford to cover ALL tuition?

[Alan Baker]

My point is that there is no reason for me to trust the conclusion of
someone so innumerate as to what Harvard can or cannot afford.

You seem to imagine that the income from the endowment fund isn't
already being spent, Snowflake.

Harvard has a BUDGET and it assumes a certain amount of revenue coming
in that includes BOTH tuition AND endowment income, and you're just
blithely suggesting that they can just stop collecting that tuition
revenue and that the endowment income can somehow magically cover
everything.

Just to help you understand the scale of your idiocy:

<https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/harvard_annual_report_2018_final.pdf>

Turn to page 14.

Undergraduate student income (i.e. undergraduate tuition): $327,171,000
Endowment income made available for operations: $318,607,000

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Welcher,

You forgot to mention the draft-dodging case of a guy named Bill:
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

Pervert Bill used Congressional connections, along with other tricks, to avoid the draft. Here is an excerpt from Col. Homes' (a survivor of the Bataan Death March) statement to Congress during Pervert Bill's 1992 campaign:

Bill Clinton came to see me at my home in 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. We engaged in an extensive, approximately two (2) hour interview. At no time during this long conversation about his desire to join the program did he inform me of his involvement, participation and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia. He was shrewd enough to realize that had I been aware of his activities, he would not
have been accepted into the ROTC program as a potential officer in the United States Army.

The next day I began to receive phone calls regarding Bill Clinton's draft status. I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright's office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program. I received several such calls. The general message conveyed by the draft board to me was that Senator Fullbright's office was putting pressure on them and that they needed my help. I then made the necessary arrangements to enroll Mr. Clinton into the ROTC
program at the University of Arkansas.

I was not "saving" him from serving his country, as he erroneously thanked me for in his letter from England (dated December 3,1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes Scholar to serve in the military as an officer. In retrospect I see that Mr. Clinton had no intention of following through with his agreement to join the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas or to attend the University of Arkansas Law School. I had explained to him the necessity of enrolling at the University of Arkansas as a student in order to be eligible to take the ROTC program at the University. He never enrolled at the University of Arkansas, but instead enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford. I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the
ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-22 10:28 a.m., toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 5:08:56 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 1:09:45 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> ...
>>> The arithmetic in your original post was NOT perfect.
>>>
>>> It was so FAR from perfect that anyone of even modest intelligence
>>> should have looked at what he had wrote and seen it had to be wrong.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Well, perhaps one should provide some consideration for anyone who
>> struggled in college back in the '60s, since one motivation was to
>> get a deferment from getting drafted to Vietnam.
>>
>> It beats the alternative of using a MD's note that they can't serve
>> because of bone spurs which will forever prevent them from walking
>> a golf course ... or as was the case for another Tom who Alan & I know,
>> because of a "broken pee pee".
>>
>>
>> -hh
>

> Hey...

<deflection all removed>

Snowflake, a simple yes or no question:

Do you really believe Donald Trump suffered from bone spurs?

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Lazy,

Thanks for posting that reference. I DID look at page 14, and it reported that the 2018 UNRESTRICTED income was $609,080,000, MORE THAN ENOUGH to pay for ALL undergraduate tuition, fees, and room and board with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS LEFT OVER!

WELL DONE!

[toms...@gmail.com]

Do you think Pervert Bill ever intended to join the ROTC?

[Alan Baker]

No, you poor innumerate snowflake.

That money is ALREADY being spent.

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but Bill Clinton isn't in this discussion.

[B...@onramp.net]

I have heel spurs and they never kept me from playing golf until they
caused so much pain that they had to be pared down which is a simple
process requiring 15 minutes in the podiatrist's office. This is not
permanent but recurs in about 6-9 months.
When its too painful just another trip to the podiatrist. However,
an operation requiring day surgery in a hospital removes them forever.
I just don't want that. The cost of recurring doctor appointments
don't add up to that of hospitalization and surgery.

Trump should never have been given a deferment for bone spurs.
>
>
>-hh

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Lazy,

Two simple yes or no questions:

1. Can Harvard afford to pay ALL of the tuition of their undergrads?

2. Is Pervert Bill a draft dodger?

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Illiterate,

NO IT ISN'T!

The Harvard Endowment Fund has grown by THIRTEEN BILLION DOLLARS in the last 9 years, and by TWO POINT ONE BILLION DOLLARS last year ALONE!

[toms...@gmail.com]

...and Pervert Bill should NEVER have been given a deferment.

[Alan Baker]

I don't know... ...and neither do you.

>
> 2. Is Pervert Bill a draft dodger?

I don't know, nor do I care.

[Bigbird]

OMG where is the third stooge.

You two should give up until one of you can read and demonstrate a
modicum of understanding of the accounts.

You are both just pulling numbers off a page that neither of you appear
to comprehend.

Syssy is utterly and completely out of his depth but Alan isn't fairing
any better.

[Bigbird]

That you think it simple simply reinforces your demonstrable lack of
comprehension.

A simple anwser might be Yes, of course they can, if they throw
prudence and caution to the wind and dig deeper into the massive
endowment with no respect for the future... much as a Trumpet thinks
about the economy in general. "add it to the deficit and be damned"

You should actually try reading the annual report and grasp a sense of
the issue. You might also note the references to the economy and the
tax cuts and jobs bill.

e.g. Generating a surplus is helpful as it will add a small cushion to
reserves in preparation for an inevitable economic downturn,
particularly in light of the current extended economic expansion — one
of the longest in history

[toms...@gmail.com]

I don't know and I don't care.

[Alan Baker]

Of course you do.

If you didn't, you wouldn't have deflected with all that stuff about
Clinton.

You're really not good at this, Snowflake.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Tweety,

It sounds like YOU don't have a "modicum of understanding of the accounts."

You don't seem to understand what "Unrestricted" or "NET CHANGE DURING THE YEAR" mean.

This is Harvard's own, audited data, Tweety.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Lazy,

Now you are telling me what I know and care about! You are a TRUE libtard of the FIRST ORDER!! Tell me, what am I having for dinner?

There IS help for your affliction:
https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/

[Alan Baker]

Simple logic, Snowflake.

When someone asks me something I don't care about, I say so.

I don't deflect from the question.

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

Same here.

[Alan Baker]

No. That's exactly the point.

When asked about Trump you didn't say "I don't care".

You deflected.

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

I KNOW you don't read articles, but this is RIDICULOUS!

[Bigbird]

WTF are you on about. I have not made any comment referring to those
terms.

You are so out of your depth with your falsehoods amd
misunderstanding/cofusion of revenue for expenditure.

Even with all this data in front of you are you still sticking with
your original post or do you have the modicum of intelligence to
withdraw it as complete nonsense?

[Bigbird]

ROTFLMAO

That's a definite NO then.

[Bigbird]

Let's illustrate your ineptness with an analogy.

Your wife's income $500
Your contribution to household expenses $200

Syssy: "My wife can afford to cover my contribution and still have $300
so I shouldn't have to pay anything"

Now total household expenses are over a $1500 but you just ignore that
and go on to say "my wife has a pension fund she should dip into that
too"

[Bigbird]

I would tell you how inane that comment is to anyone who knows me but I
don't need to piss up that wall.

The smallest amount of common sense and understanding should be enough
for anyone to understand why your premise is flawed.

It is even illustrated in bar charts for the innumerate such as
yourself; as I indicated to you early on.

> > You don't seem to understand what "Unrestricted" or "NET CHANGE
> > DURING THE YEAR" mean.
> >
> > This is Harvard's own, audited data, Tweety.
>
> WTF are you on about. I have not made any comment referring to those
> terms.
>
> You are so out of your depth with your falsehoods amd
> misunderstanding/cofusion of revenue for expenditure.
>
> Even with all this data in front of you are you still sticking with
> your original post or do you have the modicum of intelligence to
> withdraw it as complete nonsense?

If it makes it any easier for you ignore the first 3 columns; they are
irrelevant ot the discussion and just confusing Alan and you. Which is
also why I have never referred to them and your mention of them above
is a falsehood.

The last two columns contain all the data you need.

...and I'll draw your attention yet again to the fact that you have
been using numbers which are both from the income section and have been
trying to offset them against one another.

[TomS]

WTF ARE you talking about, then? You don't say ANTHING about how my interpretation is wrong - typical of a libtard. The financial reports speak for themselves.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

Now I am convinced you know nothing of financial statements. A husband and wife have combined income and expenses, making your analogy false (they cannot create more income by having one partner pay the other). The Harvard Fund is generating EXCESS income to the tune of TWO BILLION a year - covering all tuition not covered by current scholarships would cost a tenth of that.

[Bigbird]

LOL,

I have made half a dozen posts which specify exactly why you're numbers
are nonsense... even with analogous illustrations for the hard of
learning.

[Bigbird]

I am sure you can convince yourself of any falsehood that fits your
inability to comprehend.

> A
> husband and wife have combined income and expenses, making your
> analogy false (they cannot create more income by having one partner
> pay the other).

Precisely. Which is what you attempt to do by using funds already
sommitted to replace another sourse of revenue with no regard for
expenditure whatsoever,

> The Harvard Fund is generating EXCESS income to the
> tune of TWO BILLION a year - covering all tuition not covered by
> current scholarships would cost a tenth of that.

Absolutely wrong. The endowment contributed $1.8 billion towards $5
billion expenditure. Undergrad income another $400m approx.

There is no such "EXCESS".

[Alan Baker]

Harvard cannot create more income by dropping tuition.

[TomS]

LOL! NOTHING that makes any SENSE!

[TomS]

Oh, PUHLEEESSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Check the NUMBERS - their endowment fund has GROWN from 27 BILLION to 39 BILLION in 9 years.

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

When you have something intelligent to say, let me know...

[Bigbird]

Only true if you admit having absolutley no comprehension of the
accounts that you have been taking numbers from.

They make perfect sense to anyone with an iota of numeracy.

Let's take it down to the lowest level of spoonfeeding for you.


Income (millions)
Undergrad 400
Endowment 1800
Other income 3000
Total 5200

Expenditure 5000
Profit 200

Now you want to remove the undergrad income... where are you suggesting
the replacemnet income comes from?

You have been trying to offset one revenue stream with another without
generating any extra income.

You are lost when it comes to numeracy and have absolutely zero
understanding of the accounts.

[Bigbird]

That has nothing to do with your attempt to use the 1.8 billion
distribution from the endowmnet twice in the same year.

Harvard justify thier maintenance of the endowment. It has nothing to
do with the falsehood that is your OP.

Income (millions)
Undergrad 400
Endowment 1800
Other income 3000
Total 5200

Expenditure 5000
Profit 200

Now you want to remove the undergrad income... and have claimed to
replace it with part of the 1800m froom the endowment.

[Bigbird]

He would have to flag it as the chances of you recognising anything
intelligent would appear close to zero.

[John B.]

Harvard doesn't turn away people it admits because they can't pay.

[Alan Baker]

And how much inflation has there been in those same 9 years, Snowflake?
That makes the real gains a good bit less, doesn't it?

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

You IGNORE the fact that the Fund has increased in value each of the last 9 years by an average of ONE POINT THREE BILLION DOLLARS per year ($2.1 B in 2018 - thankyou, Pres Trump!). Go check it out for yourself.

[Alan Baker]

And it increases because they carefully manage it, Snowflake.

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

LOL! Answer: NO! Those are ACTUAL DOLLARS as reported by their fund manager. Are you attending the AOC School of Economics?

[TomS]

Perhaps they don't, I don't know. The point is they are growing the size of the fund totally out of proportion with how they are using it for charitable purposes, in violation of federal law. As I have already pointed out, they could help students at OTHER colleges BEFORE they demand that I pay for anyone's free college!

[Alan Baker]

But they're not CONSTANT dollars, you simpleton.

$27 billion in 2011 is now $30.21 billion in 2019. So after inflation,
the fund has grown by $9.79 billion in 9 years.

[Alan Baker]

Oh, look: another deflection!

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

They are not CONSTANT dollars, they are REAL dollars - something that you can spend (try to spend a constant dollar you deposited 9 years ago). And I expect those gains to INCREASE in the future thanks to Pres Trump's economic policies. You libtards, if nothing else, are good at deflecting the subject, which is Harvard has a DAMN LOT of money that isn't going towards charitable purposes.

[Alan Baker]

You incredible simpleton.

What it took you $27 to buy in 2011 will cost you $30.21 today. That's
an increase of 11.9%

So you understand that you have to add that correct to any discussion of
how an investment has grown, right?

If you invested $27 billion in 2011 and ended up with $30.21 billion,
you have, in reality, no more buying power than you had 9 years ago, right?

So you have look at a "REAL dollars" growth from $27 billion to $39
billion in that context. Your effective growth has been reduced from $12
billion to $8.79 billion.

Do you get it yet?

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

What you don't get is that Harvard has PLENTY of money to subsidize tuition and doesn't need MORE MONEY from me!

[Alan Baker]

What I get is that you don't understand the least thing about financing
an institution and that you don't understand that educating one's people
is good for a society.

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

Actually, that is FALSE! I was on the board of a non-profit for 22 years, and successfully guided them from a precarious financial position to one of significant strength (good enough to get a million dollar mortgage for a building construction). This non-profit has employees and volunteers than number over 1,000. I have also raised three kids, all of whom are college graduates. I also make annual donations to three colleges and universities that totals thousands of dollars.
What have YOU done - be specific?

[Alan Baker]

Riiiiiiiiiight.

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

That's IT! That's ALL YOU GOT! WHAT A BULLSHITTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bigbird]

Hey lying cuntface (as you choose to perservere with grade school name
calling)

>
> You IGNORE the fact that the Fund has increased in value each of the
> last 9 years by an average of ONE POINT THREE BILLION DOLLARS per
> year ($2.1 B in 2018 - thankyou, Pres Trump!). Go check it out for
> yourself.

I ignore everything but your original post that you have still not
accepted was complete and utter BULLSHIT.

I have spoonfed you your own figures in the p&l above.

Now either you can explain yourself or you accept that label of BULLSHIT

I think that you now rely on totally changing course proves the latter.

[Alan Baker]

That's all I need.

And "million dollar mortgage"?

It's little tells like that that show you for how little you even
understand how to lie.

Million dollar mortgages are NOTHING. A million dollar mortgage let's
you build a house and not much more.

How many of that "1,000" do the volunteers number, Snowflake?

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

YOU chose to ignore the plain, simple facts: the Harvard Fund is racking in excess BILLIONS and AOC want to tax ME instead! That is what is BULLSHIT!!!!!

Now, I am NOT going to call someone who calls herself "Bigbird" a "cuntface" because that is even more RIDICULOUS and MORONIC.

[TomS]

Hey Lazy,

The question was "what have YOU done - be specific?"

BTW, their annual budget is now $20 million.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

The question is: why should we believe a single word you say?

>
> BTW, their annual budget is now $20 million.

Riiiiiiiight.

>

[Bigbird]

[Snip all the erroneous evasion in between]

Hey Liar,

> YOU chose to ignore the plain, simple facts:

No you did. Your op was just BULLSHIT and you cannot assert otherwise
so you have had to change your whole story.

You never provided any evidence or real claims of anything AOC has
said; just a topic and BULLSHIT to follow.

Your numbers are complete bollocks just like your opinion... AND you
know it. :)

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Hey Lazy,
>
> Actually, that is FALSE! I was on the board of a non-profit for 22
> years, and successfully guided them from a precarious financial
> position to one of significant strength (good enough to get a million
> dollar mortgage for a building construction). This non-profit has
> employees and volunteers than number over 1,000. I have also raised
> three kids, all of whom are college graduates. I also make annual
> donations to three colleges and universities that totals thousands of
> dollars. What have YOU done - be specific?

Yet you can't understand a profit and loss report or balance sheet...

...you really know how to put your claims in doubt, as if being a
reknowned bullshitter wasn't enough.

LOL.

[-hh]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-02-27 8:48 p.m., TomS wrote:

> > ...

> >>>
> >>> Actually, that is FALSE! I was on the board of a non-profit for 22
> >>> years, and successfully guided them from a precarious financial
> >>> position to one of significant strength (good enough to get a million
> >>> dollar mortgage for a building construction). This non-profit has
> >>> employees and volunteers than number over 1,000. I have also raised
> >>> three kids, all of whom are college graduates. I also make annual
> >>> donations to three colleges and universities that totals thousands of
> >>> dollars. What have YOU done - be specific?
> >>
> >>
> >> Riiiiiiiiiight.
>
>
>

> And "million dollar mortgage"?
>
> It's little tells like that that show you for how little you even
> understand how to lie.
>
> Million dollar mortgages are NOTHING. A million dollar mortgage let's
> you build a house and not much more.
>
> How many of that "1,000" do the volunteers number, Snowflake?

Overall, it sounds like he was a member of his local church,
who apparently took out a ~$5K/month "Million Dollar" mortgage
for a building renovation/expansion. In this context, there's
probably under a dozen employees but lots of parishioners.


-hh

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

You live in Libtard Heaven where white is black and black is white. AOC wants FREE tuition for everyone, except, of course, it ISN'T free. No college is going to teach students for free. What she REALLY means is that I WILL pay for some stranger's education at the point of a gun. Sorry, I think that libtards like YOU should pay first - and certainly Harvard can afford to pay more.

[TomS]

Hey Welcher,

WRONG AGAIN! You are batting ONE THOUSAND!!

[TomS]

Yup, you got it right!

[Bigbird]

Hey Shrek,

[snip evasion]

I see you stopped persiting with your BULLSHIT OP but are too infantile
to admit your errors or your inability to read fiancial statements.

[Bigbird]

You are all just pissing up the wall.

The only thing relevant here is that whatever he claims, as he has
proven he can't read a financial statement it is doubtful he played
much of a role in any financial control.

[Bigbird]

LOL, and what is the purchasing power of a dollar (or 27 billion) 9
years ago compared to now?

Is that "REAL"?

> And I expect those gains to INCREASE in the future thanks to
> Pres Trump's economic policies.

Yes, but as you have proven you don't have a grasp of finances.

Here's what Harvard have to say:

"Generating a surplus is helpful as it will add a small cushion to
reserves in preparation for an inevitable economic downturn,
particularly in light of the current extended economic expansion — one
of the longest in history."

> You libtards, if nothing else, are
> good at deflecting the subject, which is Harvard has a DAMN LOT of
> money that isn't going towards charitable purposes.

No Shrek, you are deflecting.

Your loosely related topic was supported by falsehoods. Numbers
randomly picked from a financial statement and then used in a manner
which has no meaning whatsover; in a way that only some ignoramus with
no understanding of financial statements might attempt.

In answer to your revised line of adddress, here AGAiN is what Harvard
have to say:

Why can’t Harvard use more of its endowment in order to cover
additional expenses or reduce tuition costs?

(That would be over and above the distributed 1.8 billion you claim
they can spend TWICE)

Returns from the endowment foster leading financial aid programs,
scientific research discoveries, and hundreds of professorships.

However, there is a common misconception that endowments, including
Harvard’s, can be accessed like bank accounts, used for anything at any
time as long as funds are available. In reality, Harvard’s flexibility
in spending from the endowment is limited by the fact that it must be
maintained in perpetuity and that it is largely restricted.

Endowment gifts are intended by their donors to benefit both current
and future generations of students and scholars. As a result, Harvard
is obligated to preserve the purchasing power of these gifts by
spending only a small fraction of their value each year. Spending
significantly more than that over time, for whatever reason, would
privilege the present over the future in a manner inconsistent with an
endowment’s fundamental purpose of maintaining intergenerational equity.

TRY READING IT THIS TIME RETARD; IT MIGHT OCCUR TO YOU TO STOP MAKING
SUCH A DICK OF YOURSELF.

[-hh]

Alan wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > …

> > BTW, their annual budget is now $20 million.
>
> Riiiiiiiight.

But wouldn’t this claim actually mean that this mystery nonprofit
operation did vastly better after Tom ... stopped “helping” them?
Oopsie!

-hh

[-hh]

Tom shouts:
> -hh wrote:

>> Alan wrote:
>> > Million dollar mortgages are NOTHING. A million dollar mortgage let's
>> > you build a house and not much more.
>> >
>> > How many of that "1,000" do the volunteers number, Snowflake?
>>
>> Overall, it sounds like he was a member of his local church,
>> who apparently took out a ~$5K/month "Million Dollar" mortgage
>> for a building renovation/expansion. In this context, there's
>> probably under a dozen employees but lots of parishioners.
>
>

> WRONG AGAIN! You are batting ONE THOUSAND!!

Incorrect, for I didn’t make a claim: try some reading comprehension:
“it sounds like”.

In the meantime, you’ve now avoided, twice, answering the simple question
of just how few actual paid employees this alleged mystery nonprofit has.

...because it’s not like no one else hasn’t participated in nonprofit groups,
to understand their structures. Given how thoroughly you screwed up the
Harvard endowment topic, I’d not be surprised if you got the balance of an
endowment fund conflated with income.


-hh

[Bigbird]

I find it ironic that he should be involved in an organisation
distributing money from taxes that he opposes and resents paying.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

I showed EXACTLY on their financial report where they were reporting an UNRESTRICTED surplus large enough to cover all outstanding tuition costs. Guess you missed that...

[TomS]

Hey Welcher,

The number of paid FTEs is about 600 - and growing.

[Bigbird]

Hey ugly hypoctical lying bag of shit,

>
> I showed EXACTLY on their financial report where they were reporting
> an UNRESTRICTED surplus large enough to cover all outstanding tuition
> costs. Guess you missed that...

No you didn't.

You clearly neither understood the financial reports nor the many
attempt to spoonfeed you a little insight into your glaring errors.

You referred in your posts to two revenuse streams and claimed to be
able ot offset them with a surplus.

Here's the numbers you used, show us how you did it again dimbo, LMFAO

[Alan Baker]

It's not an unrestricted surplus. It is reinvested to ensure the future
health of the fund.

[-hh]

Tom spins:

> The number of paid FTEs is about 600 - and growing.

So?

What was it back during your “leadership”?


-hh

[Bigbird]

You might ask what their modal pay was. I have a feeling it'd below a
living wage given his recent comments.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

"ugly hypoctical lying bag of shit" and you are concerned about name calling?

Explain to me HOW the Harvard fund is INCREASING in value by BILLIONS of dollars if their "profit" is only $200 MILLION.

[TomS]

The employee count increased every year I was on the board, as did the budget and the surplus. It was 550, or so, when I left. What management experience do you have?

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

Your feelings are a bit suspect, given all of your foul name calling. But, none the less, most of these are union jobs with full benefits.

[TomS]

If AOC and her fellow libtards want to tax ME for "free" tuition, they BETTER go after the low-hanging fruit FIRST, and the Harvard Fund is the LOWEST!

[TomS]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 3:25:00 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-02-27 1:58 p.m., TomS wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 1:41:53 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker
> > wrote:
> >> On 2019-02-27 1:33 p.m., TomS wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 1:16:05 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 2019-02-27 1:10 p.m., TomS wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 12:33:51 PM UTC-8, Alan

> >>>>> Baker wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:14 p.m., TomS wrote:

> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:47:58 AM UTC-8,

> >>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2019-02-26 8:30 p.m., TomS wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:17:56 AM UTC-8,
> >>>>>>>>> Bigbird wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>> TomS wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 10:49:18 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>> UTC-8, Bigbird wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 12:13:59 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-8, Bigbird wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 10:01:58
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:09:45 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 11:47:02 AM UTC-8,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> February 20, 2019 at 10:44:26 PM UTC-8,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>>>>> On

> >>>>> you deposited 9 years ago). And I expect those gains to

> >>>>> INCREASE in the future thanks to Pres Trump's economic

> >>>>> policies. You libtards, if nothing else, are good at

> >>>>> deflecting the subject, which is Harvard has a DAMN LOT of
> >>>>> money that isn't going towards charitable purposes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>

> >>>> You incredible simpleton.
> >>>>
> >>>> What it took you $27 to buy in 2011 will cost you $30.21 today.
> >>>> That's an increase of 11.9%
> >>>>
> >>>> So you understand that you have to add that correct to any
> >>>> discussion of how an investment has grown, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> If you invested $27 billion in 2011 and ended up with $30.21
> >>>> billion, you have, in reality, no more buying power than you
> >>>> had 9 years ago, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> So you have look at a "REAL dollars" growth from $27 billion to
> >>>> $39 billion in that context. Your effective growth has been
> >>>> reduced from $12 billion to $8.79 billion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you get it yet?
> >>>
> >>> Hey Lazy,
> >>>
> >>> What you don't get is that Harvard has PLENTY of money to
> >>> subsidize tuition and doesn't need MORE MONEY from me!
> >>>
> >>
> >> What I get is that you don't understand the least thing about
> >> financing an institution and that you don't understand that
> >> educating one's people is good for a society.
> >
> > Hey Lazy,
> >

> > Actually, that is FALSE! I was on the board of a non-profit for 22
> > years, and successfully guided them from a precarious financial
> > position to one of significant strength (good enough to get a million
> > dollar mortgage for a building construction). This non-profit has
> > employees and volunteers than number over 1,000. I have also raised
> > three kids, all of whom are college graduates. I also make annual
> > donations to three colleges and universities that totals thousands of
> > dollars. What have YOU done - be specific?
> >
>
>
> Riiiiiiiiiight.

Hey Lazy,

You STILL haven't detailed what YOU have done in the way of charity.