11 thoughts on “Harvard”

1. I’m going to start calling Democrats “Maocrats”, and the “Maocrat Party”.

2. Ver Ri Mao?

3. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments

   It’s also not the federal government’s business.

   I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this sort of thing about corporations. Like Walmart helping its poorer employees out navigating the welfare benefits maze, and getting accused of receiving subsidies. The excuse for punishing Walmart and its workers is that business is a privilege not a right with the same implication that the government can and should take that privilege away anytime they feel like it.

   1. For the most part I agree Karl though have slight issue with Walmart example with the Net income of 19 Billion and Large # of employees on food stamps.
      Dunno how bout no Shareholder equity until all employees are above the poverty line. Otherwise shareholders are exploiting subsidized labor to make profit.

      Now have problems with how enforceable that is, and the side effects starter jobs.

      1. For the most part I agree Karl though have slight issue with Walmart example with the Net income of 19 Billion and Large # of employees on food stamps.
         Dunno how bout no Shareholder equity until all employees are above the poverty line. Otherwise shareholders are exploiting subsidized labor to make profit.

         On that, how about do nothing since hiring poor people is desirable behavior?

         1. On that, how about do nothing since hiring poor people is desirable behavior?

            Is it also desirable to have tax payer pay billions of dollars to Walmart employees? While a dumb ass investor like me who has 2.5 million$ invested in Walmart stock this year could safely sell 4% of investment while still growing my investment by at least 8% make enough money that I would not qualify for food stamps if I had a family of 6 in Hawaii (~100k$ a year) without even having to get out of bed. How bout instead of having a ROI of 14%, pay the lowest rung more instead of relying on tax payers to keep them off the street and fed so shareholders can make a tidy profit on their labor.

            1. Is it also desirable to have tax payer pay billions of dollars to Walmart employees?

               You’ve already accepted the premise that welfare for poor people is desirable. Now you merely need to accept the consequences – such as poor people actually getting said welfare.

4. Good, we are under no obligation to allow leftist colleges educate foreigners who want to destroy our country or reward colleges who engage in illegal discrimination and terrorism. But why stop at Harvard?

   We should starting holding all colleges accountable. One thing that should happen is any college that produces students who default on their debt or have excessive students who don’t finish college should either lose access to the student loan program or have restricted funds.

   1. Good, we are under no obligation to allow leftist colleges educate foreigners who want to destroy our country

      Care to cite examples? Other than Bibi Netyahru but for every Bibi their a Shimon Peres.

      And as Karl said what business is it of the Federal government who Harvard educates as long as they don’t commit crimes here.

      We should starting holding all colleges accountable. One thing that should happen is any college that produces students who default on their debt or have excessive students who don’t finish college should either lose access to the student loan program or have restricted funds.

      What does that have to do with Harvard? Isn’t the most defaults at For Profit colleges what exactly has Trump administrations done about this? When are we going to target Liberty University a Private institution that has defaults on loans at nearly public Univirsitiy levels.

      This is definitely FAing we haven’t quite reached the finding out phase.

      1. If the federal government is giving Harvard money, on the assumption that doing so serves American interests – as it has done for decades now – what Harvard actually does with the money is very much the federal government’s business.

         More to the point, the federal government has a real duty to ensure that foreigners coming into the country will be a net benefit to *us*. Harvard wanting to educate foreign students is beneficial to Harvard and the students, but as representative of the US, the federal government has every right to ask whether it’s beneficial to the US.

         1. I disagree on both counts. There is considerable federal funds that are given without expectation that it serves some sort of American interest (assuming we ever figure out what that is). Nor does giving money generate an expectation after the fact. Consider how this can be abused. If the federal government just starts giving you money, say such as Social Security or Medicare, are they then authorized to monitor you to ensure that you are serving American interests (with whoever happens to be in charge deciding what those interests are).

Comments are closed.