I dont give a shit!

[Kiki Cannoli]

If you don't go to college, odds are you'll struggle. If you do go to college, you will definetely suffer paying back that loan.

I think some of these protesters are spot on. They are forced to participate in a system they had no hand in designing and upon completion the golding ring is not even visible, never mind within reach.

The cost of an education is comparative to that of a first mortage. Higher education is soaring industry.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

First, the 10 year of public service should not be compared to the 20. As GTH said, there is a very real and large value to enticing people into service instead of the private sector, especially because the salaries are so much lower. And instead of arguing the actual equivalent value to society in specific price per year of service, which would be largely subjective, let's just ignore it for now and focus on the 20.

In the 20 year plan, there is no way the person is only paying off 1/4 of his total. Using the federal income based repayment calculator, a $100,000 debt with the average income of $52,000 you stated comes out to be about $450/month. Multiply that by 240 months, and you're over the principle. Now where that doesn't happen is when you're taking out well over $100,000 for your education. But again, this is how insurance works: some people pay more, at ridiculous interest rates, and others who needed ridiculous amounts of money for their education pay slightly less. Fear not, as the government isn't really losing money.

 

[BDBoop]

I disagree about the potential for abuse. Federal grants are not a "take as much as you want" pot. Education programs add up a total cost of education and living in a given year, then subtract what they perceive the student and family can contribute, as well as any scholarships or other grants. Whatever number is left over represents the amount the student has no way of paying for, and that is the amount that is offered. Even that has a specific cap, before students are generally forced into taking out private loans, which are horrible and fall outside the realm of this discussion.

All of your conclusions about Rolls Royces and the subsequent fallout are not quite accurate. Similarly, loans must be paid for 20 years to be forgiven. That means two decades of payments. At 7-10% interest. You do the math, but I guarantee you the principle and tons of interest are already paid by time things are "forgiven."

OMG thank you! I mean, you're still talking to brick walls, but my point is made and my work here is done, thanks to your post.

 

[BDBoop]

That would be true IF you are paying the prevailing interest rate and IF you are paying the amount necessary to retire the loan in 20 years.

What do you mean "prevailing interest rate"? Interest rate for what? The average interest rate on a student loan is 6-7%. That doesn't change. In my situation, I will be paying the amount necessary to retire the loan in 20 years. About three times over.

But if the loan will be forgiven, and you are required to only pay a fixed maximum amount every year, and you've run up college debts equivalent to the cost of a nice house or a couple of Rolls Royces, it doesn't really matter how much interest will be accrued does it? Because at the end of 10 or 20 years, all will be forgiven and written off. The repayment has nothing to do with the amount of the total loan as the payment is equalized for everybody.

And the borrower still doesn't come out ahead. In this fantastical scenario, the best I could see anybody do is illustrate an absurd scenario where someone worked a job for $25K a year (putting them below the poverty line) for 20 years while having a miximal amount of debt ($212,000). To make the math work in your favor, you have to create an extreme situation. If someone chooses to work for $25K a year career with a college degree, that is their perrogative. They have fallen way off the curve as to what most people anticipate earning out of college. In this instance, it's more akin to the "slaughter rule".

For most people, there is heavy economic pressure to pay off your debt as quickly as possible. No one is going to intentionally take a shitty job to avoid their college debt. Or if they do, they are stupid. Most people don't go to college to live below the poverty line. Would you work a job at the lowest end of the pay scale with no possibility of a raise for 20 years? Hell no. Outside of extreme cases ("I felt the call and decided to be a missionary for my entire life. Material possessions mean nothing to me."), NO American (college degree or not) is going to enter into a screw job like that.

I am sure there will be outliers, but there are with any program. Overall, the program is good and the intent (to keep college grads afloat while they are at the low end of the pay scale until they can pay back the loan in full.

And it is THAT which leaves the potential for a lot of abuse. Especially if widely used, it actually creates another expensive entitlement program. But our Fearless Leader is not concerned about that. He will be out of office long before the repercussions and obvious negative effects hit.

Just as Bush will be long gone before we feel the repercussions of the massive debt he amassed on his stupid little wars.

At any rate, it's not going to be "widely used". Step back and think about this logically. People go to college to get ahead. No one goes to college to try and figure out a way to screw the government out of their loans. People obtain a degree to try and pursue a career where they can provide for a family or live a comfortable life. Eventually they will take on more debt if they buy a house or start a business, etc. As people move up in their careers, they earn more money and are obligated to make larger payments. You guys are acting like the whole point of college is to skate around your debt. That's just silly.

This is so fun. I just second you and hick, and point and laugh at the idiots you're talking to.

 

[geauxtohell]

The average salary for a person with a bachelor's degree is about $52,000 per year right now. If a student runs up a $200,000 college loan debt, the interest rate won't matter one whit as, under the President's mandate, will be required to pay back only about half of that over the next 20 years and, if he puts in that 10 years of targeted public service, he will pay back probably less than 1/4 of his debt.

Again, $200K in college debt would be considered massive debt (even for Medical School). Few students are going to come out of college with that much debt. Why not pick something more reasonable?

Project on Student Debt: Missouri

The average undergrad student debt in Missouri in 2009 was 1/10 of that: $21,000.

Why go with an astronomical debt? Oh yeah, because that's the only way you can make the math work out in your favor.

Compare that to the student who works hard to merit a scholarship, whose parents saved to help with his college education, who lives at home, works full time, and goes to night school to complete a degree to avoid running up a lot of debt.

And that person has done themselves a huge favor by coming out of college with a degree and being debt free. Again, three is more to this scenario then college tuition.

How is it fair for the taxpayer to subsidize the first student and not the second?

There is nothing to subsidize on the second. That student has decided to pay for school on their own and will have their own rewards for that. It's not like they are getting screwed over. If that were the case, they could simply take out loans.

In regards to the taxpayer: It's fair because investing in higher education continues to be among the smartest government expenditures. It raises our ability to compete in the global market and increases tax revenue.

Guess what? As soon as these students are out of college, they start paying taxes too. They are in your position with contributing towards other people's educations.

I just don't get why you guys fight any sort of effort by the government to assist people with college education.

Also, there is a crucial component to IBR that I missed: to be elgible you have to show hardship. So I will be eligible during residency, but as soon as I start making a regular salary will be booted back to the traditional repayment and no longer elgible for the 20 year plan (which would be stupid for me anyways).

So the field narrows. This only applies to people who can claim a hardship. How many people are going to be able to do that for 20 years? If they do, then they've got bigger problems then their debt.

 

[Foxfyre]

That would be true IF you are paying the prevailing interest rate and IF you are paying the amount necessary to retire the loan in 20 years.

What do you mean "prevailing interest rate"? Interest rate for what? The average interest rate on a student loan is 6-7%. That doesn't change. In my situation, I will be paying the amount necessary to retire the loan in 20 years. About three times over.

But if the loan will be forgiven, and you are required to only pay a fixed maximum amount every year, and you've run up college debts equivalent to the cost of a nice house or a couple of Rolls Royces, it doesn't really matter how much interest will be accrued does it? Because at the end of 10 or 20 years, all will be forgiven and written off. The repayment has nothing to do with the amount of the total loan as the payment is equalized for everybody.

And the borrower still doesn't come out ahead. In this fantastical scenario, the best I could see anybody do is illustrate an absurd scenario where someone worked a job for $25K a year (putting them below the poverty line) for 20 years while having a miximal amount of debt ($212,000). To make the math work in your favor, you have to create an extreme situation. If someone chooses to work for $25K a year career with a college degree, that is their perrogative. They have fallen way off the curve as to what most people anticipate earning out of college. In this instance, it's more akin to the "slaughter rule".

For most people, there is heavy economic pressure to pay off your debt as quickly as possible. No one is going to intentionally take a shitty job to avoid their college debt. Or if they do, they are stupid. Most people don't go to college to live below the poverty line. Would you work a job at the lowest end of the pay scale with no possibility of a raise for 20 years? Hell no. Outside of extreme cases ("I felt the call and decided to be a missionary for my entire life. Material possessions mean nothing to me."), NO American (college degree or not) is going to enter into a screw job like that.

I am sure there will be outliers, but there are with any program. Overall, the program is good and the intent (to keep college grads afloat while they are at the low end of the pay scale until they can pay back the loan in full.

And it is THAT which leaves the potential for a lot of abuse. Especially if widely used, it actually creates another expensive entitlement program. But our Fearless Leader is not concerned about that. He will be out of office long before the repercussions and obvious negative effects hit.

Just as Bush will be long gone before we feel the repercussions of the massive debt he amassed on his stupid little wars.

At any rate, it's not going to be "widely used". Step back and think about this logically. People go to college to get ahead. No one goes to college to try and figure out a way to screw the government out of their loans. People obtain a degree to try and pursue a career where they can provide for a family or live a comfortable life. Eventually they will take on more debt if they buy a house or start a business, etc. As people move up in their careers, they earn more money and are obligated to make larger payments. You guys are acting like the whole point of college is to skate around your debt. That's just silly.

What is it about liberals in that they are unable to focus on an immediate 'issue' without justifying current 'sins' by bringing up past totally unrelated ones? If President Bush was a Nazi who waged war on every other nation, literally crucified his enemies, and amassed great personal wealth by draining the U.S. treasury, what does that have to do with the immediate issue of government student loans?

What does any of the previous history of student loans, other than the effectiveness, consequences, and track record of repayment and default have to do with the current policy of student loans?

It is true that people who accomplish themselves, with or without a college degree, generally are able to move up in the world and become better off financially. My figures were based on the current average salary for those with bachelor's degrees, however, and the average includes the poorest and the richest. Of course a doctor will make a very nice income once he is fully practicing, but the school teacher is going to likely be closer to the average or a little below. To compare the situation of the average citizen with a doctor's financial situation is as ridiculous as comparing me, the owner of a small business, with the CEO of Intel.

It is true that the current government interest rate for student loans is 6.8% which is also ridiculous when the government is pushing to back more home mortgages with rates that are little more than half of that right now. I do recall reading or hearing somewhere though that the President's new college loan program will drop interest rates well below the 6.8%. I could be wrong about that but it would make sense.

I actually don't have much problem with government backed student loans so long as good faith effort to collect those loans is made. I preferred those loans going through financial institutions, however, because it was good training for the students to learn how to work with a financial institution and also psychologically conditioned them to think of private sector and not government for what they want and need.

The bottom line here though is that however the program is structured, to give college students a way to avoid paying some or even most of their college loans puts the tax payer on the hook for those loans. And those who have already paid off their loans as agreed as well as the rest of us who are paying our own way without extra government assistance have a legitimate right to feel like they are the ones getting screwed.

 

[geauxtohell]

What is it about liberals in that they are unable to focus on an immediate 'issue' without justifying current 'sins' by bringing up past totally unrelated ones? If President Bush was a Nazi who waged war on every other nation, literally crucified his enemies, and amassed great personal wealth by draining the U.S. treasury, what does that have to do with the immediate issue of government student loans?

The point was more that long term effects of most things any President does is not felt until after they are long gone.

What does any of the previous history of student loans, other than the effectiveness, consequences, and track record of repayment and default have to do with the current policy of student loans?

It is true that people who accomplish themselves, with or without a college degree, generally are able to move up in the world and become better off financially. My figures were based on the current average salary for those with bachelor's degrees, however, and the average includes the poorest and the richest. Of course a doctor will make a very nice income once he is fully practicing, but the school teacher is going to likely be closer to the average or a little below. To compare the situation of the average citizen with a doctor's financial situation is as ridiculous as comparing me, the owner of a small business, with the CEO of Intel.

Not really. The upside of my earnability is fixed. I will have to do something outside of medicine to make over $300K. You, on the other hand, can expand your business and make millions. I have less risk, but less reward. The only thing that stops a small business owner from take a stab at a massive income is their own hesitency. More risk, more reward.

It is true that the current government interest rate for student loans is 6.8% which is also ridiculous when the government is pushing to back more home mortgages with rates that are little more than half of that right now. I do recall reading or hearing somewhere though that the President's new college loan program will drop interest rates well below the 6.8%. I could be wrong about that but it would make sense.

The rate was around 2% in 2001.

I actually don't have much problem with government backed student loans so long as good faith effort to collect those loans is made. I preferred those loans going through financial institutions, however, because it was good training for the students to learn how to work with a financial institution and also psychologically conditioned them to think of private sector and not government for what they want and need.

Why? The interest rates on private loans are generally higher.

The bottom line here though is that however the program is structured, to give college students a way to avoid paying some or even most of their college loans puts the tax payer on the hook for those loans. And those who have already paid off their loans as agreed as well as the rest of us who are paying our own way without extra government assistance have a legitimate right to feel like they are the ones getting screwed.

And anyone that purposely skews their earnability to simply avoid paying their loans is an idiot. They aren't doing themselves any favors. They've sacrificed 20 years of paychecks to avoid a (relatively small considering a 20 year career) debt. At the end of that, they have nothing left for retirement and will be around 40 and in the dregs of whatever profession they work in. It's not like someone is going to magically jump from a 20 year menial career to the corporate boardroom. You need something on the resume.

I suspect the 20 year option will apply to a very small percentage of Americans who have very severe consequences. To anyone that is acting in bad faith, they haven't gotten ahead. They have just screwed themselves.

In the end, this is a loan and one of the few government programs where the taxpayers are reimbursed with interest.

 

[Foxfyre]

What is it about liberals in that they are unable to focus on an immediate 'issue' without justifying current 'sins' by bringing up past totally unrelated ones? If President Bush was a Nazi who waged war on every other nation, literally crucified his enemies, and amassed great personal wealth by draining the U.S. treasury, what does that have to do with the immediate issue of government student loans?

The point was more that long term effects of most things any President does is not felt until after they are long gone.

What does any of the previous history of student loans, other than the effectiveness, consequences, and track record of repayment and default have to do with the current policy of student loans?

It is true that people who accomplish themselves, with or without a college degree, generally are able to move up in the world and become better off financially. My figures were based on the current average salary for those with bachelor's degrees, however, and the average includes the poorest and the richest. Of course a doctor will make a very nice income once he is fully practicing, but the school teacher is going to likely be closer to the average or a little below. To compare the situation of the average citizen with a doctor's financial situation is as ridiculous as comparing me, the owner of a small business, with the CEO of Intel.

Not really. The upside of my earnability is fixed. I will have to do something outside of medicine to make over $300K. You, on the other hand, can expand your business and make millions. I have less risk, but less reward. The only thing that stops a small business owner from take a stab at a massive income is their own hesitency. More risk, more reward.



The rate was around 2% in 2001.

I actually don't have much problem with government backed student loans so long as good faith effort to collect those loans is made. I preferred those loans going through financial institutions, however, because it was good training for the students to learn how to work with a financial institution and also psychologically conditioned them to think of private sector and not government for what they want and need.

Why? The interest rates on private loans are generally higher.

The bottom line here though is that however the program is structured, to give college students a way to avoid paying some or even most of their college loans puts the tax payer on the hook for those loans. And those who have already paid off their loans as agreed as well as the rest of us who are paying our own way without extra government assistance have a legitimate right to feel like they are the ones getting screwed.

And anyone that purposely skews their earnability to simply avoid paying their loans is an idiot. They aren't doing themselves any favors. They've sacrificed 20 years of paychecks to avoid a (relatively small considering a 20 year career) debt. At the end of that, they have nothing left for retirement and will be around 40 and in the dregs of whatever profession they work in. It's not like someone is going to magically jump from a 20 year menial career to the corporate boardroom. You need something on the resume.

I suspect the 20 year option will apply to a very small percentage of Americans who have very severe consequences. To anyone that is acting in bad faith, they haven't gotten ahead. They have just screwed themselves.

In the end, this is a loan and one of the few government programs where the taxpayers are reimbursed with interest.

And that is why I have no problem with the program UNTIL they start forgiving the loans at my expense. Yes, give the kids a hand up by making it possible for them to attend college. But don't start dickering with the rules to forgive some of the loans at tax payer expense. THAT is all anybody has been arguing for in this thread. Those who borrow money should be required to repay what they borrow. It is as simple as that.

 

[BDBoop]

Not really. The upside of my earnability is fixed. I will have to do something outside of medicine to make over $300K. You, on the other hand, can expand your business and make millions. I have less risk, but less reward. The only thing that stops a small business owner from take a stab at a massive income is their own hesitency. More risk, more reward.

OMG. I actually had a knockdown, drag-out fight with my housemate several months ago because she couldn't grasp this point. I said there's no limit to how much you can make online. She said that was true of law. I said no, because you can only bill so much an hour, even if you're working 24/7. It's finite. But if you know your shit online, you can just keep building and building.

She just kept arguing, and arguing.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

And that is why I have no problem with the program UNTIL they start forgiving the loans at my expense. Yes, give the kids a hand up by making it possible for them to attend college. But don't start dickering with the rules to forgive some of the loans at tax payer expense. THAT is all anybody has been arguing for in this thread. Those who borrow money should be required to repay what they borrow. It is as simple as that.

This continues to be a shortsighted perspective. Putting aside the fact that everyone with debt under $100,000 pays back their original loan with interest with the 20 year plan, and the fact that the majority of people with over $100,000 wind up paying it off without having anything forgiven, that leaves us with a minority of a minority percent of students that this applies to whatsoever. And who pays for their forgiven loans? You? That's silly. The 6.8-10% interest that everyone else paid takes care of it. Or did you think the government pulled that interest rate out of thin air, despite being over inflation?

But let's just say that wasn't the case. Let's just say 0.5% of your tax dollars went to someone else getting an education. Let's even ignore that the tax dollars of the person paying off their loans ALSO goes back to paying for their theoretically forgiven education. Let's just go with the hypothetical that well-off Americans are PAYING for poorer Americans to get an education. You see that as a bad thing?

Educating the citizens of this country is the most important thing we can do to improve this country. #1. Dumb country = bad country. So, if you, or I, or other people need to contribute a minuscule amount of their taxes to go towards education, which I don't even think is happening, why is that a bad thing in your mind?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

 

[Si modo]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

Liar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

The program makes it possible for them to get out of paying it back.

 

[Wiseacre]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

Not all cons think alike, any more than libs do. Lumping people together is a bit lazy I think.

I don't think the federal gov't should be involved at all with student loans. Actually, I don't think any level of gov't should be involved with student loans, it should be done privately with the schools, the banks, and the student and the family.

The president's program originally allowed unpaid student loans to be forgiven after 25 years, as part of the ObamaCare bill. Which I think was dishonest, the dems tried to use interest paid from the loans to help pay the costs of the new healthcare bill. Now he wants to change it to 20 years, which to me is a blatent attempt to buy votes at the expense of taxpayers. It stinks.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

What you need to get is Obama ended two primary student loan programs that already did that. He buried it in his Affordable Health Care Act language.

Loan Changes, Sans Congress
October 26, 2011 - 3:00am
By
Libby A. Nelson

WASHINGTON -- President Obama today will announce a plan to consolidate federal student loans for millions of borrowers and expand income-based repayment for current students — both steps he will take without input from or action by Congress, amid rising concern about student debt.

Together, the two changes — part of the president’s package of economic measures designed to be enacted by executive order — will affect about 7 million of the federal student loan program’s 36 million borrowers. Even before the changes were announced Tuesday afternoon, Congressional Republicans were already questioning whether the administration had the authority to make them.

The majority of borrowers affected will be students who borrowed money under both the Federal Family Education Loan Program, when banks issued federal student loans and collected government subsidies, and the Direct Loan Program, under which the federal government lends money directly to students.

The government began originating all loans through direct lending in 2010, when a provision to eliminate bank-based student lending was included in the administration’s health care overhaul. But many students who were enrolled at the time of the change have loans in both programs, meaning they make two payments. The Education Department has said these 5.8 million borrowers are more likely to default, though why is a matter of some dispute. Administration officials attribute it to the fact that borrowers must make payments to two or more entities, while others say the Education Department has failed to fully replace the support for borrowers and colleges that lenders and guarantee agencies had under FFEL.

The consolidation program would combine the two loans into one direct loan and reduce the interest rate by up to 0.5 percent: a 0.25 percent reduction as a reward for consolidating, and a 0.25 percent discount for borrowers who enroll to make automatic payments. (Borrowers who have only a direct loan are already eligible for the automatic payment discount.) Borrowers eligible for consolidation will be notified in early 2012.

Read more: Obama proposes changes to student loan programs | Inside Higher Ed
Inside Higher Ed

So he messes everything up with his fucked up health care bill (as far as student aid goes) on one hand, and claims he'll help them on the other. He caused the problem. Now he's trying to us it to get re-elected.

He's trying to corner the market on the student vote by buying up all of their loans.

My question is this: Obama has hosed everyone who was foolish enough to take money from him.....why are they doing it again?

I guess people just have short memories.

If the media was doing it's job they'd destroy this guy in a week.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

The program makes it possible for them to get out of paying it back.

The program makes it possible for a small percentage to have the remainder of their loans, most likely just interest, forgiven after two decades.

 

[Intense]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

The program makes it possible for them to get out of paying it back.

The program makes it possible for a small percentage to have the remainder of their loans, most likely just interest, forgiven after two decades.

Maybe the Plan needs to address the reason why Tuition's are so high in the first place.
Why not address the problem at the Foundation, the Root?

Money is thrown away like candy, the problem only addressed after it is too late. High Tuition's and Expenses, high Interest, to what end? Schools, States, Banks, and the Fed, sucking up Life Blood like Vampires.

 

[Wiseacre]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

The program makes it possible for them to get out of paying it back.

The program makes it possible for a small percentage to have the remainder of their loans, most likely just interest, forgiven after two decades.

A few years ago that small percentage was around 13%, probably up to near 20% by now and going higher. Look, anybody who borrows taxpayer money has an obligation to pay it back, I don't care how long it takes.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

Not all cons think alike, any more than libs do. Lumping people together is a bit lazy I think.

I don't think the federal gov't should be involved at all with student loans. Actually, I don't think any level of gov't should be involved with student loans, it should be done privately with the schools, the banks, and the student and the family.

The president's program originally allowed unpaid student loans to be forgiven after 25 years, as part of the ObamaCare bill. Which I think was dishonest, the dems tried to use interest paid from the loans to help pay the costs of the new healthcare bill. Now he wants to change it to 20 years, which to me is a blatent attempt to buy votes at the expense of taxpayers. It stinks.

I completely agree with you. Not all cons think alike. Just the ones who post on this forum.

 

[Si modo]

Nobody here thinks kids should be able to borrow money for college and not have to pay it back. The President's program makes it easier for kids to pay off their loans.

Cons don't seem to be able to get that.

Not all cons think alike, any more than libs do. Lumping people together is a bit lazy I think.

I don't think the federal gov't should be involved at all with student loans. Actually, I don't think any level of gov't should be involved with student loans, it should be done privately with the schools, the banks, and the student and the family.

The president's program originally allowed unpaid student loans to be forgiven after 25 years, as part of the ObamaCare bill. Which I think was dishonest, the dems tried to use interest paid from the loans to help pay the costs of the new healthcare bill. Now he wants to change it to 20 years, which to me is a blatent attempt to buy votes at the expense of taxpayers. It stinks.

I completely agree with you. Not all cons think alike. Just the ones who post on this forum.

Another lie from the pathological liar.