“Sen. Feingold can’t have it both ways, and his record places him firmly on the wrong side of students, said Pat Garrett, spokesman for the Wisconsin Republican Party. “While Feingold talks about making college affordable, he hypocritically spent years cashing in— taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees and salaries.”
Garrett was referring to Feingold’s six-figure salary at Stanford University and honoraria collected from various universities for campus visits listed in his personal financial disclosure forms.
A search of those records dating back to 2013 show he collectively received $450,000 between 2012-15 from 17 different schools, the lion’s share coming from Stanford, where he was on staff.
I’d like to know the ROI for spending so much money on Feingold that the students and taxpayers received. It is difficult to take Feingold seriously about his concerns about the cost of higher education when he is cashing in on the bloated spending from that same industry. It is equally difficult to take colleges and universities seriously when they cry “poor” given how much stupid spending they do.
Wow.
Feingold putting poor college kids into an eternity of student loan debt directly.
More nonsense that you can’t prove.
How about when a good “conservative” gets a fee for speaking, is that bad? I know Cheney gets big $$, as does Rove. But that must be OK., right?
Nord,
It is bad if listeners are subsidized by government to listen like Feingold.
Even worse if it takes advantage of poor college kids like Feingold.
And that again, is nonsense. You need to kick your game up a couple notches, or folks will think you are just goofing off.
Nord,
I guess that is only response when it comes to Feingold getting rich off the backs of debt ridden college students.
Feingold’s plunder is one of reason’s college is too expensive.
OK, I’ll be more specific.
Fabrication #1 : Feingold getting rich off the backs of debt ridden college students.
Fabrication #2 : Feingold’s plunder is one of reason’s college is too expensive.
Both of the statements you made are lacking in truthiness and are strictly your own opinion, without any basis in fact.
1.). Democrats have said in past that anyone making over $60k a year is “rich”. Feingold is making welk over that, along with majority of college profs.
2.). If the rich are supported by taxpayer subsidy, it is “plunder”.
No more accurate or truthful than your previous comments.
When you charge for a Dilly Bar and make a profit, is that “plunder”? When Cheney gets paid for a speaking engagement, is that “plunder” ?
Nord,
It is not, because buyer is free to make the decision AND buyer does not get government subsidy to buy it.
I understand that. And it is refreshing that you do as well. But what if it is a private college? What if Russ or Cheney spoke at Marquette? Is that still plunder?
If school receives Pell Grants and government loan guarantees.
Yes.
School should cut its tuition so it’s affordable, rather than pay pseudo lecturers like Feingold excessive salaries.
Kevin:
FYI: Pell Grants, at least according to their Web Site, are awarded to students not the institution they attend.
FYI 2: The faculty position Russ had at Stanford was an endowed chair, meaning that his salary did not come from tuition. Ditto the spots at Marquette and Lawrence.
It always amazes me that you are so much smarter than the rest of society. Stanford, the #2 or 3 ranked law school in the US, hires RF as a faculty member. Yet you claim he is a “pseudo lecturer”. And your qualifications to make this proclamation are…. ?
Pell grants are partly determined by level of institution’s tuition.
The ” endowment” could be used to help poor students rather than sucking at government subsidy.
Stanford is heavily subsidized by government. So is Marquette.
True, but that doesn’t make your statement any more truthful.
The endowment board decides where the $$ is spent. No doubt some goes to aid needy students.
No, it isn’t.
So, you are wrong on all counts. What do you have up your sleeve next? Or are you just going to make up some more stuff and claim that Russ is sucking at the government subsidy?
You agree with me on 2 points and then say I’m wrong on all counts?
What kind of math do you use?
So excessive academic salary is just dandy?
Kevin:
You are a tragic figure in your own soap opera, with a pathological aversion to admitting error. So sad.
Nord,
Remind me of my error here again?
You were the one that agreed with me on 2 points, then said I was “wrong on all counts.”
The following statements from Kevin are all false:
“Feingold putting poor college kids into an eternity of student loan debt directly.
It is bad if listeners are subsidized by government to listen like Feingold.
Even worse if it takes advantage of poor college kids like Feingold.
Feingold getting rich off the backs of debt ridden college students.
Feingold’s plunder is one of reason’s college is too expensive.
If school receives Pell Grants and government loan guarantees.
pseudo lecturers like Feingold excessive salaries.
Stanford is heavily subsidized by government. So is Marquette.”
Nord,
So you deny those statements as being true?
Let’s start with definition of “rich”. Many Democrats say that is someone making $60,000 a year or more?
Agree?
I said that the statements you made are false.
No.
Nord,
This is the problem. You fail to embrace the liberal definition of “rich”.
I’m using liberal standard (those making 60K+ a year). Feingold is “rich” under liberal standard.
Thus, all my statements are true.
Feingold is rich, living off back of poor college students.
Liberal standard for “rich” has changed?
You are a troubled soul. Seek help.