Basura: Fox host Laura Ingraham’s Bad Angle

“Pity the mother and the father when the kids go away.” — The Amazing Rhythm Aces

Fox host Laura Ingraham earns $15 million per year, according to four sources.  I’d call that fairly well off. 

I found it shocking, though perhaps not all that surprising, that she spoke recently about her mother waiting tables at age 73 in order to pay off her student loans.  Not the mother’s student loans — Laura’s student loans.

I suppose some 73-year-old women wait tables.   But I do think that Laura might have taken it upon herself to pay off her own student loans.  Perhaps Laura’s mom got lots of nice tips.  People might have felt sorry for someone working a difficult job like that at rather advanced age. 

Laura might have considered eating at the restaurant where her mom was a waitress, and leaving her a really nice tip.  Let’s hope she at least thanked her mom. Maybe a nice greeting card, in appreciation of her unselfish efforts to pay off those pesky debts from some fancy colleges. 

Isn’t it amazing that Laura would tell such a story about her mother, working as a server to pay of her (Laura’s) student loans?  Is she that clueless?  I have no idea.  I don’t watch her show.   Maybe her mom just liked waiting tables.  Maybe Laura didn’t recognize her own narcissism.  Doing so would require thinking about more than oneself.

Laura Ingraham is 58 years old.  She has an estimated wealth of $45 million.  She graduated with a bachelor of arts degree from Dartmouth in 1985, and a juris doctor from University of Virginia in 1991.  She wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, worked for a big law firm, worked in radio, and TV, and seemingly was earning enough to pay off her student loans with her well compensated jobs.

Isn’t there something – like maybe a commandment — in the Bible about honoring thy father and mother?

For shame. 

11 thoughts on “Basura: Fox host Laura Ingraham’s Bad Angle”

  1. I haven’t commented on commentary here in along time, but this type of thing is all too common so I’ll weigh in on it and perhaps it will help put things better into perspective.

    It’s not good or right at all for anyone to comment and publicly shame someone about a perceived character flaw while missing and not checking out some very important pertinent facts.

    According to Laura Ingraham’s mother’s obituary ** Laura Ingraham would have been just 29 years old when her mom was 73 back in 1993. According to open records, after Laura finished law school in 1991she clerked for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Neither high-paying jobs. Her subsequent current millions in earnings and net worth are thus entirely irrelevant to those years. Since she was in government work back then and living in or around expensive New York and Washington DC, paying off her significant student loan at that time might well have been a reasonably heavy burden. I certainly agree that if she had been in a position to do so she of course should have taken care of it herself. But I don’t know whether her financial position allowed that at the time or not, and apparently you don’t know the facts of the matter in that regard either. I have to ask any accuser of bad character, and so I ask you… Would you appreciate someone speculating about your past actions and motivations in the same way you have done without knowing the facts? I for sure would hope not. The Golden Rule applies even to journalism and commentary.


    1. Terry,

      WOWO WOW WOW!!!! Thank You for stepping up with those pesky facts!! Now lets wait for an apology and a retraction………That will not happen………..


  2. Brief follow-up comments… I too have to ask myself the very same question about the application of the Golden Rule. So I asked that of myself before commenting with regard to the unwarranted uninformed public shaming treatment of Laura Ingraham in this assumed matter. If the same had been written about me, you, or anyone else in this way, I would want the same kind of defense against such an unworthy character attack. You were not alone in your public attack on her. It often says more about the attackers than the attacked. Each and all I’ve read from the left side of the spectrum did the same knee-jerk reaction of ready judgment without considering the available facts and the lack of other unknown facts. Perhaps when she came into her own financially she paid her mom back and more before her mom died in 1999. Who knows? I know One Who knows.

  3. Laura spoke for herself. She reported that her mom worked as a waitress at 73 to pay back student loans Laura had taken out. If you think her character was besmirched, she brought it on herself. You seem like a thoughtful guy; I can’t help but imagine you wouldn’t have accepted such from your mother in the same position. I wouldn’t have.

    1. So why must these two things in this case both be true? (I.e., 1) That Laura Ingraham’s mother was helping pay off her student loans at age 73, and 2) That L.I. was somehow thus automatically dead wrong in allowing her mother to do that for her not yet 30-year-old daughter.) Yes, children are to honor their parents. That being the case, there is still nothing at all wrong with parents lovingly and voluntarily assisting their adult children who may need it at the time. Millions upon millions have done it and still do all the time, and very often rightly so. That’s just a common real-world part of life-long sacrificial love for our offspring given to us by God their whole life…even if they are 29. Isn’t that lovingly reasonable in life?

      1. BTW… What we would or would not do ourselves is not at all the standard of right and wrong, nor is it some basis of justification for attacking someone’s character or looking down on others. There’s a much higher and more trustworthy standard for us all. Again, if we don’t want others to do it to us then we are responsible to refrain from doing it to others. Maybe L.I.’s mom had promised if her daughter went the whole route in pursuing law studies she would make sure it was covered as much as she could. Or maybe L.I. gave her mom back multiples of what her mom had covered when the money began rolling in for L.I. Do we know? No. Did she say? No. Maybe she didn’t want to reveal what all she had done to honor her mom for that when she could (before her mom died 6 years later). That’s why we can’t rightly judge based on scant and incomplete info. Nor should we. Too many times there seems to be a delight in doing it to others anyway.

        1. Dennis Longstreet

          Mr Parks you have more maybes and what ifs than the original story. L I is not a caring person that is not scant and incomplete info!! Harming people is L I job. My Dad taught me years ago if you cant afford it do not buy it.

  4. Dennis Longstreet

    Anyone involved with Fox news does not know about the ten commandments. She had college debt like every student has pay it back yourself. Character attack is Laura Ingrahams agenda . Perceived character flaws are Her whole show Facts with Laura do not seem to mater. Laura does not know the golden rule.

  5. In 2019 Senator Elizabeth Warren’s net worth was $12 Million dollars. Today, in 2022 her net worth is $67 Million.

    What does she know about the daily concerns of Average Americans?

    What does this say about the reality in Washington when becoming a US Senator represents such a massive windfall?

    1. Mr MacDougal you left out about 31 Republicans that are the richest people in the Senate, in 2018&2019 out of the top 50 ,so what do they know about the average persons daily concerns?

  6. I am amused at the fax outrage defending Ms Ingraham’s decision to continue to have her 73 year old mother pay student loans.

    As the father of two adult children who graduated from public state universities 10 and 17 years ago (and I signed Plus Loans for a portion of undergrad costs for both) respectively and as person who got my degree after my enlistment about five years before Ms Ingraham got her undergrad from Ivy League Dartmouth then a JD from UVA Law, I’m very aware of the cost of education.

    Ms Ingraham’s mother made the decision to take responsibility for the Ivy League tuition, books, housing, board at Dartmouth. Before entering school Ms Ingraham and her family decided they wanted to invest in the Ivy League education rather than a less expensive option like the state public universities in Connecticut. Maybe even living at home for a portion of the undergrad and attending a school in the UConn system.

    Ms Ingraham also opted to attend University of Virginia Law School. She could have decided to attend UConn’s Law School for about 45% less. Of course you don’t make the same connections and a UConn law degree doesn’t open the doors a UVA degree might.

    Bottom line, as a voice of “conservatives” Ms Ingraham knew mother made clear choices concerning the cost her daughter’s education. Her mother signed for and made those loan payments of her own free will. If the daughter found it acceptable to have her mother waiting tables to continue to pay those loans after undergrad and or law school when her mother was past retirement age she shouldn’t complain years after the fact.

Leave a Reply to Dennis Longstreet Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top