Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Did you pay back your student loans.


Pat Riot

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

 

I don't know where you got the idea that the loans are "contracts" like any other kind of debt.  A great deal of these loans were forgiven on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness or on the provision of the law that all student loans are forgiven after 20 or 25 years.  Those provisions were passed by Congress a long time ago, and they were always part of the "deal" struck by borrowers with the government for the loans.  The loans are not like a car loan where you are told what the payment will be and the terms up front.  Student loans are totally different in that these conditions of potential forgiveness/discharge are built in to the terms from the very beginning.  For example, all federal student loans are discharged if you become "totally and permanently disabled." 

 

The suggestion that these things "cost" the taxpayers anything is also misleading.  The government owns these debts and expects repayment of some of them.  But unlike a home mortgage or a car note, there exist many legal reasons why the loans may not have ever been repaid.  As such, the "cost" was the government loaning the money under those terms in the first place.  That the person exercises their right under a statute (Like PLSF, or disability, or after 25 years) to discharge the debt is part of the terms of the loan.  It's not as if it's a new cost to forgive the loan when the government agreed up front to forgive the loan if you satisfy its conditions.

 

If the government loaned or paid ANY money to anyone or any colleges...then it's taxpayer funded. If the government doesn't get reimbursed for this money...it's taxpayer funded.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the two-step plan.

 

1A) Divorce wife who "deserved better" letting her keep the Mercedes and the associated payment

1B) Keep paid-off economy car

2A) From the savings, pay off student loans in full ahead of schedule

2B) Buy hot rod with no loan, and house, and...

Edited by John Kloehr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was married at the end of my freshman year. Worked swing shift through undergrad without borrowing. Came out of law school in 1973 owing $9,000; 3/4 of my first law job yearly salary. We paid it off in about 4 or 5 years.

 

I'm not mad about much of anything.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, El Chapo said:

don't know where you got the idea that the loans are "contracts" like any other kind of debt.

When you sign a loan document you are essentially agreeing to a contract to pay it back. 
 

2 hours ago, El Chapo said:

The suggestion that these things "cost" the taxpayers anything is also misleading.

I didn’t say that. The Congressional Budget Office did. 
 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@El Chapo

 

The .gov produces nothing and gets all its money by taxation. So as a net tax payor it DOES cost me.

 

In addition the cost of college went up in direct correlation to the government GUARANTEED  payment. They can charge whatever they want, just like medical 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, they were paid off. My parents helped with what they could with short term loans for tuition, which was about $1,300/yr. at University of Kansas. I worked year round for everything else. 
 

To this day I don’t understand why 12 hours/semester is considered full time. In my day, that was the threshold between part time and full time students. The average student load was 16 hours. No wonder it takes so long to graduate. 
 

The outrageous cost of college now is a direct result of easy loans backed by the govt. There’s been no reason for colleges to reign in the cost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

 

The big difference is the artificially inflated cost of college.  My freshman year tuition (1970-71) was about $1200; you could earn enough over the summer to pay that bill and still cover some living and commuting expenses.  Today, that same school charges $45,000 per year.  How does a kid earn that much while still in school?  

 

This is the fundamental problem. 1966-70 I worked swing shift, went full time to U of Wash undergrad, and supported a wife and children (had the third just after graduation), including all rent, food, and expenses in Seattle then. No loans or outside help.

 

This has been impossible for a long time.  My tuition then was about $1,200 per year also. 

 

Private law school tuition was $2,000 first year, $2,500 second year. Now it's around 45k.

 

There's no doubt the availability of the loans drove tuitions up. On the other hand, I was glad of them in law school; only had to work summers, not the school year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, El Chapo said:

 

I don't know where you got the idea that the loans are "contracts" like any other kind of debt.  A great deal of these loans were forgiven on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness or on the provision of the law that all student loans are forgiven after 20 or 25 years.  Those provisions were passed by Congress a long time ago, and they were always part of the "deal" struck by borrowers with the government for the loans.  The loans are not like a car loan where you are told what the payment will be and the terms up front.  Student loans are totally different in that these conditions of potential forgiveness/discharge are built in to the terms from the very beginning.  For example, all federal student loans are discharged if you become "totally and permanently disabled." 

 

The suggestion that these things "cost" the taxpayers anything is also misleading.  The government owns these debts and expects repayment of some of them.  But unlike a home mortgage or a car note, there exist many legal reasons why the loans may not have ever been repaid.  As such, the "cost" was the government loaning the money under those terms in the first place.  That the person exercises their right under a statute (Like PLSF, or disability, or after 25 years) to discharge the debt is part of the terms of the loan.  It's not as if it's a new cost to forgive the loan when the government agreed up front to forgive the loan if you satisfy its conditions.

Any way you can bend the logic, the taxpayers are still paying for somebody else's education who decided not to pay for it themselves.  And if the loan recipients honorably repaid the obligation, the cost to the taxpayers would be limited to the admin costs. 

 

And loan forgiveness only comes up at election time.  Vote for me and I'll save you lots of money.   Totally predictable vote buying.  

And, let's not forget the inequity between the forgiven ones and those who paid off their loans.   There is nothing fair or equitable about the loan forgiveness proposals, which is why the SCOTUS determination was against it -- or so everyone thought. 

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i worked multiple jobs all the time i was going to school so i didnt really have and student loans , i did have a little debt when i got out of school - about 5k and paid it off the first year i was out , 

 

i also paid off about 5k of my daughters student debts when she graduated the first time , even with full ride scholarships she accumulated a little debt , she got full ride on both of her masters and had no debts , 

 

im not going to throw any rocks here but i dont think taxpayers should pay any student debts - they signed for them and spent the money , they should pay it back , 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked my way through school; however, I did receive a $400 student loan when I started at San Francisco State College in 1969.  As I recall, this loan was payable within a number of years of finishing school.

 

Well, life being what life is, I did not give it much thought; I also never received a bill, statement, notice, nor anything else.  Until one afternoon about 1977, when I got a phone call from some collection agency.  Very rudely, the person on the other end of the line literally chewed me out and said that I needed to immediately pay him and his organization the $400 plus interest plus fees - which were a LOT.

 

"Oh heck, no problem," sez I.  "I'll just go on down to the university* and write them a check!"

 

Oh no, the character said - they now owned my loan, and I had to pay them some figure with a comma in it, and if I did NOT pay them directly, they were gonna come after me.

 

I snorted, hung up, and called the university's financial aid office.  I told their person about the collection agency's call, and apologized for having forgotten all about the loan.  "No problem!" she said.  "We were negligent in our billing, but would be glad to accept payment."

 

Half an hour later I handed the nice lady a check for something like $450 and was done.

 

*San Francisco State changed from College to University in 1972. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

meme-studentloanforgivenavy.thumb.jpg.9b869c9df15503b0aaaa2af2214e649c.jpg

 

 

ETA: I didn't pay back the cost of college education -- it was the cost of college education that paid ME back.

Thanks for bringing this point up. 
 

When I joined the Navy I actually put money aside through their college program but at some point right after I got married I dropped that program. 
I was actually considering staying in the Navy as a career, but I didn’t. Another story for another time. 
I would say at least a third of the guys I served with were taking advantage of the college savings program.

After leaving the Navy I have encountered dozens of people over the years that used military and veterans programs to further their education. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gungadin said:

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

What, they tell me what my share is?  Say it ain't so Joe!  (That comes from the Black Sox Scandal, just works in this case...)

 

I thought that debt belonged to 'Uncle Sam'?

Well that's discouraging 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps college endowment funds should be used to pay back college loans? ;)

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My youngest grand daughter is a freshman at Bishop Ireton high school in Alexandria, VA.
Tuition is $20k per year.
She is doing Junior year trig and Junior year Latin.

She is a Navy brat, but Mom and Dad plan to keep her in this school through graduation, even if Dad has to take a remote if he picks up Flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Any way you can bend the logic, the taxpayers are still paying for somebody else's education who decided not to pay for it themselves.  And if the loan recipients honorably repaid the obligation, the cost to the taxpayers would be limited to the admin costs. 

 

And loan forgiveness only comes up at election time.  Vote for me and I'll save you lots of money.   Totally predictable vote buying.  

And, let's not forget the inequity between the forgiven ones and those who paid off their loans.   There is nothing fair or equitable about the loan forgiveness proposals, which is why the SCOTUS determination was against it -- or so everyone thought. 

 

I don't think "decided" is the right word.  The government has subsidized education for 50 years, which drove up the cost to a ridiculous rate.  I guarantee you if we poll the posters in this thread, the ones who say they were able to pay their way through school will trend toward much older than those who have loans.

 

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, for example, was created about 15 years ago because the government realized that it cannot afford to pay the kind of salaries that it takes to obtain the talent it needs.  It doesn't pay enough to be a teacher, a cop, a prosecutor, etc., but these jobs require degrees.  The PLSF was a compromise.  I'm sure every cop on the street would gladly trade the PLSF for double their pay, but since that isn't coming, PLSF remains one of the benefits of their employment.

 

The loan forgiveness provisions that forgive all student loans after 25 years have been part of the deal for much longer.  Since student loans rarely are dischargeable in bankruptcy, the compromise was that if someone cannot figure out how to pay their loans after 25 years, after which they'll be closer to retirement on social security benefits than they are to their college days, then the balance should be forgiven.

 

The idea that this is just younger generations pawning off the costs on the taxpayers is simply not reality.  I'm sure all of us would be happy to pay cash at inflation adjusted 1980 prices for our education.  Broken policies by the government in the last 50 years have caused higher education to go up in cost more than almost anything else, even eclipsing the increases in prices of health care in that time.  If they reduced the price to a sane rate tomorrow, I'd write a check and call it a day.  Instead I attended two state universities and went to class in the same buildings my parents could have gone to school in and you and others want me to hitch up to the plow for literally the rest of my life for the privilege.

 

Obviously we need to figure out how to make education affordable.  I do not think there should just be blanket forgiveness in exchange for nothing.  But lumping all forgiveness into one bowl doesn't tell the whole story.  I wouldn't have spent the last 10 years in public service if not for PLSF, not because I wouldn't have wanted to serve my community, but rather because without PLSF, I would have no hope of ever paying my loans back with what the government pays.  I would be forced to try to seek a high paying job elsewhere to be able to pay it back.  PLSF is a deal that Congress made with us that if we dedicate 10 years to public service, we can get our loans forgiven.  And when mine are forgiven, which will be soon, I have every intention of staying in public service even though people are offering me big money to go to the private sector. 

 

These discussions need perspective, not just politics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee I'm in public service in my town, maybe we can work out a deal to pay off my mortgage! You signed, you can pay. Nobody offered me free college if I could come up with a reason to not pay it back after 25 years. But thank you for your public service, just not happy that I'm paying for it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Gee I'm in public service in my town, maybe we can work out a deal to pay off my mortgage! You signed, you can pay. Nobody offered me free college if I could come up with a reason to not pay it back after 25 years. But thank you for your public service, just not happy that I'm paying for it.

 

I signed it under the condition that I could obtain forgiveness in exchange for public service.  The government is just as obligated to make true on its part of the deal as I am.  Don't shoot the messenger.  If you're against public service forgiveness and you want there to be an instant, nationwide shortage of teachers and police officers, then lobby Congress and get them to repeal PLSF tomorrow.  In a democratic society, it is your burden to persuade enough of your fellow citizens that the existing policy is a bad idea and should be changed.  Good luck on that.

 

While you're at it, maybe you ought to insult a few veterans who obtain their GI bill.  After all, they signed on the dotted line and the government is giving them a benefit they were promised in exchange for their service.  You should probably criticize them for taking advantage of their benefits conferred on them by law by a country grateful for their service.  Because while we're against rewarding people who do things that are social desirable, you might as well go after them and not just the student borrowers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not politics to me,  I have no problem if part of the deal was service but I don't think that is what we are talking about here.  I had a friend who had his dental school paid for BUT he owed service.  WHen he graduated they didn't need him, he started practice and then they called him.  That was the deal he made.

 

Son had a friend that did some form of high school ROTC and was to have his college paid for.  Flunked out his first semester but the taxpayer still paid as I understand.

 

This forgiveness was not the deal they made.  The government should not be in the business of buying votes or 'insuring bad decisions'.  It just promotes more bad decisions.

 

Shouldn't get a college loan without some real qualifications, yea SAT's are not fair, grades are inflated, whatever.  Sorry you didn't earn a loan, there is no evidence you are quality material.

 

There is a college bubble created by....you guessed it, the government.  If loans were real and to real students 20% of colleges would go belly up in 5 years.

 

Everyone is asking 'where is my subsidy?'  Bad home loans, paying farmers not to grow, subsidized corn alcohol, on and on.  Just bad practice.  You want more of something incentivise it.  And we have the practice of incentivizing bad behavior.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the age of 19 I raised my hand, swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and signed blank check payable on demand to Uncle Sam. By the grace of God it was never cashed. Instead it was returned 20 years later with interest.

 

Between the skills I learned during my 20 years in the Navy and the higher education that the GI bill paid for. I am blessed with a job that pays well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El Chapo said:

 

I signed it under the condition that I could obtain forgiveness in exchange for public service.  The government is just as obligated to make true on its part of the deal as I am.  Don't shoot the messenger.  If you're against public service forgiveness and you want there to be an instant, nationwide shortage of teachers and police officers, then lobby Congress and get them to repeal PLSF tomorrow.  In a democratic society, it is your burden to persuade enough of your fellow citizens that the existing policy is a bad idea and should be changed.  Good luck on that.

 

While you're at it, maybe you ought to insult a few veterans who obtain their GI bill.  After all, they signed on the dotted line and the government is giving them a benefit they were promised in exchange for their service.  You should probably criticize them for taking advantage of their benefits conferred on them by law by a country grateful for their service.  Because while we're against rewarding people who do things that are social desirable, you might as well go after them and not just the student borrowers.

I mean no personal insult to you El Chapo and applaud your public service. If public service was the deal you made for schooling, that is fine. My issue is this vote getter of Biden's to pay off 813,000 loans don't appear to have the same conditions or he wouldn't have had to make the offer or get it approved by Congress, it would have happened automatically as yours did. Veterans aren't even a comparison. Veterans put up there lives for the few benefits they get. They didn't borrow funds agreeing to pay them back and now whine that the govt. should take care of it because they can't find a job doing whatever it was they spent time getting a degree in. So many kids back in my day went to college for the sole reason of avoiding the draft and now I/we should have to pay that debt.

Again, my sincere apologies if I insulted you, it was not my intention.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, El Chapo said:

 

I don't think "decided" is the right word.  The government has subsidized education for 50 years, which drove up the cost to a ridiculous rate.  I guarantee you if we poll the posters in this thread, the ones who say they were able to pay their way through school will trend toward much older than those who have loans.

 

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, for example, was created about 15 years ago because the government realized that it cannot afford to pay the kind of salaries that it takes to obtain the talent it needs.  It doesn't pay enough to be a teacher, a cop, a prosecutor, etc., but these jobs require degrees.  The PLSF was a compromise.  I'm sure every cop on the street would gladly trade the PLSF for double their pay, but since that isn't coming, PLSF remains one of the benefits of their employment.

 

The loan forgiveness provisions that forgive all student loans after 25 years have been part of the deal for much longer.  Since student loans rarely are dischargeable in bankruptcy, the compromise was that if someone cannot figure out how to pay their loans after 25 years, after which they'll be closer to retirement on social security benefits than they are to their college days, then the balance should be forgiven.

 

The idea that this is just younger generations pawning off the costs on the taxpayers is simply not reality.  I'm sure all of us would be happy to pay cash at inflation adjusted 1980 prices for our education.  Broken policies by the government in the last 50 years have caused higher education to go up in cost more than almost anything else, even eclipsing the increases in prices of health care in that time.  If they reduced the price to a sane rate tomorrow, I'd write a check and call it a day.  Instead I attended two state universities and went to class in the same buildings my parents could have gone to school in and you and others want me to hitch up to the plow for literally the rest of my life for the privilege.

 

Obviously we need to figure out how to make education affordable.  I do not think there should just be blanket forgiveness in exchange for nothing.  But lumping all forgiveness into one bowl doesn't tell the whole story.  I wouldn't have spent the last 10 years in public service if not for PLSF, not because I wouldn't have wanted to serve my community, but rather because without PLSF, I would have no hope of ever paying my loans back with what the government pays.  I would be forced to try to seek a high paying job elsewhere to be able to pay it back.  PLSF is a deal that Congress made with us that if we dedicate 10 years to public service, we can get our loans forgiven.  And when mine are forgiven, which will be soon, I have every intention of staying in public service even though people are offering me big money to go to the private sector. 

 

These discussions need perspective, not just politics.

I agree perspective is important.  So why is it better for me to pay someone else's highly inflated education costs, via my taxes every year, than it is for the person who received the benefit paying those costs? (My taxes are also excessive and inflated).

 

If the borrowers majored/minored in a marketable field, and not some idealistic fad, and they took real classes, rather than international (travel) studies,  and they went out and got real a job afterwards, and not just a convenient one,  their college funding obligation should be fully payable.  If not, they made bad decisions and choices along the way, either about their education curriculum or about how they spent their money afterwards.  

 

But regardless, their obligations are theirs.  They signed the line, not me.  Seeing 30+% of everything I ever earned go to an insatiable governmental appetite for tax money, I don't feel charitable to cover for  poor, downtrodden individuals who bought showy new houses and BMWs and incurred huge credit card debt, instead of first paying off their loans.   

 

For 15 years after I finished my graduate degrees, I drove an aging Datsun pickup and lived with my MD wife in a 1,200 sf house on a $900/mo State salary, while we paid off her 7 years of medical school loans.   Been there, done that.  I guess we should have just stiffed the government and taxpayers.  

I apologize here if I am being unnecessarily abrasive and hard-hearted, but like many, I am a paying victim in this vote buying scharade.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

I mean no personal insult to you El Chapo and applaud your public service. If public service was the deal you made for schooling, that is fine. My issue is this vote getter of Biden's to pay off 813,000 loans don't appear to have the same conditions or he wouldn't have had to make the offer or get it approved by Congress, it would have happened automatically as yours did. Veterans aren't even a comparison. Veterans put up there lives for the few benefits they get. They didn't borrow funds agreeing to pay them back and now whine that the govt. should take care of it because they can't find a job doing whatever it was they spent time getting a degree in. So many kids back in my day went to college for the sole reason of avoiding the draft and now I/we should have to pay that debt.

Again, my sincere apologies if I insulted you, it was not my intention.

 

The 813,000 number was created by the media.  It includes a considerable number of people whose loans were discharged by operation of laws that far predate Biden's presidency.  The media 1) wants you to be angry and 2) wants Biden to get political credit from his supporters.

 

Student borrowers do not borrow the funds "agreeing to pay it back."  They borrow money under conditions that are more like a social welfare program than a debt.  The government created these policies.

 

I'm not insulted one bit.  I think you and a lot of other people are under the misconception that a student loan is like a mortgage loan or a car note.  It isn't.  A student loan is nothing like those things, because it comes with all sorts of terms that could result in you not ever having to pay it back (e.g., disability).  Tell your mortgage company you're disabled and see if they still collect.  Then tell the judge the same thing when they foreclose.  You will get nothing.  Yet being disabled wipes your student debt.  And that's just one example.

 

2 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I agree perspective is important.  So why is it better for me to pay someone else's highly inflated education costs, via my taxes every year, than it is for the person who received the benefit paying those costs? (My taxes are also excessive and inflated).

 

If the borrowers majored/minored in a marketable field, and not some idealistic fad, and they took real classes, rather than international (travel) studies,  and they went out and got real a job afterwards, and not just a convenient one,  their college funding obligation should be fully payable.  If not, they made bad decisions and choices along the way, either about their education curriculum or about how they spent their money afterwards.  

 

But regardless, their obligations are theirs.  They signed the line, not me.  Seeing 30+% of everything I ever earned go to an insatiable governmental appetite for tax money, I don't feel charitable to cover for  poor, downtrodden individuals who bought showy new houses and BMWs and incurred huge credit card debt, instead of first paying off their loans.   

 

For 15 years after I finished my graduate degrees, I drove an aging Datsun pickup and lived with my MD wife in a 1,200 sf house on a $900/mo State salary, while we paid off her 7 years of medical school loans.   Been there, done that.  I guess we should have just stiffed the government and taxpayers.  

I apologize here if I am being unnecessarily abrasive and hard-hearted, but like many, I am a paying victim in this vote buying scharade.  

 

 

I never said it was "better."  You're arguing with a straw man there.  Congress decided these policies for everyone.  I didn't decide them and I wouldn't have voted for any of them.

 

Your second paragraph is, in a word, wrong.  The price of higher education is ridiculous these days.  My degree is in economics.  Short of a few types of engineering, economics is the highest paying college major for initial entry salary.  I have serious doubts that I would have ever been able to pay my undergrad loans with the salary from my economics degree.  If I hadn't gone to graduate school, I would have gone to work for the fed or something to try to pay them or counted on them being forgiven after 25 years.  The government subsidized education to much and for so long, college is simply unaffordable to those who don't have their parents' money to attend.  

 

You can say I made a "bad choice" if you want to, but any other businessman who made a failed investment with other people's money in hopes of earning a greater income is allowed to file bankruptcy and get a fresh start.  Student loans are generally non-dischargeable, so not only did we get a raw deal where we're unable to pay, there is no relief available by the mechanism our society has for failed business decisions. 

 

FWIW: I am still driving the truck I bought on March 18, 2005 (it's the second longest relationship I have ever had).  To date, I have never had a secretary who didn't drive a newer car than I do, not in private practice and not in government service.  The nature of your comments suggests that you have no clue how insanely expensive higher education is now or why these forgiveness programs were even enacted.

 

If my profession paid anything like first year MDs are paid, I'd have paid off my student loans a long, long time ago.
 

I don't think you're abrasive or hard-hearted at all.  I do think you're sorely mistaken if you think we would have many basic government services that require higher education without these programs, though.  If you think somene would go to school and hitch up to a 1/4 million in debt to earn less than a first year nurse, I'm sorry to be the one to inform you that we wouldn't have any prosecutors from my generation without these programs.

 

So to answer the original question: hell no I didn't pay back my student loans and I never will.  But I've also dedicated my entire professional career to public service in an effort to keep our streets safe and I couldn't have made that decision without PLSF.  If I'm a welfare queen for choosing that, so be it.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So glad to hear that I'm paying for your education and service, you're welcome! If this was the original agreement, why is it called a "loan" and why did the courts shut it down last year if it was the agreement. Also, why would most responsible people pay it back if it's not required. Just another way to live off the backs of the working man. I appreciate what LEO's do, but bettin most didn't need economics degrees to be a cop. It certainly isn't a requirement around here. My Dad was a State Trooper with just a high school diploma, no body had to pay back his loans for anything, he got a real job and paid for what we had. Again, just sick of paying for everyone that doesn't feel like working and paying their own way. Seen and know folks that collect multiple Welfare checks and it's generational. Why work if the govt. will pay for it. Amazing how many Cadillacs & Lincolns ya see in the welfare ghetto.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things which might help loan repayment is to not provide loans on majors with little employment demand.

 

CoViD did present challenge across industries for new graduates, the crash of '08 stressed the entire economy, but certain careers have higher demand than others. If you want a degree where there is a worker shortage, government loans make sense. If you want to strike out in a low-demand field, pay your own way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to compare the situation 50 years ago with today. I came out of law school with $9k in loans which was significant, given that my first law position was $12k per year. But it was doable and straightforward; we budgeted and paid it off in about 4 years, and of course it was a worthwhile investment.There was no question of non-repayment back then. It allowed me to work only summers in law school. Without it, the outcome would not have changed ultimately for me, but it would have been harder.

 

But college costs are so much more now, well outstripping inflation, and it is certain that loan availability has driven tuition up. Whereas my loan was 3/4 of a starting salary, nowadays many loans far exceed a starting income. So I can't condemn outright some who ultimately don't repay. Not a simple issue; to me, not 'I paid, so they must pay.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eyesa Horg said:

So glad to hear that I'm paying for your education and service, you're welcome! If this was the original agreement, why is it called a "loan" and why did the courts shut it down last year if it was the agreement. Also, why would most responsible people pay it back if it's not required. Just another way to live off the backs of the working man. I appreciate what LEO's do, but bettin most didn't need economics degrees to be a cop. It certainly isn't a requirement around here. My Dad was a State Trooper with just a high school diploma, no body had to pay back his loans for anything, he got a real job and paid for what we had. Again, just sick of paying for everyone that doesn't feel like working and paying their own way. Seen and know folks that collect multiple Welfare checks and it's generational. Why work if the govt. will pay for it. Amazing how many Cadillacs & Lincolns ya see in the welfare ghetto.

 

1) It's called a loan for the same reason the Obamacare penalty was called a tax: because Congress gets to decide what it's called.

 

2) The Court shut down an entirely different line of forgiveness which was premised on the declaration of a COVID emergency.  The Supreme Court's decision had nothing to do with PLSF, disabled forgiveness, or the fact that all student loans are forgiven after a statutory/regulatory period.  That was the law before, and after, the Supreme Court's decision.  Biden's plan was to give a bunch of people who did nothing for our society blanket forgiveness for simply breathing.  It is not the same thing as those who have their loans forgiven by operation of statutes passed by Congress.  PLSF is statutory, it wasn't made up as a political stunt by any President; it's been the law for at least 14 years now.

 

Your dad went to school decades ago when it cost a tiny fraction of what it costs now.  My generation would be happy to pay that.  For the last 40 years, wages have stagnated and the cost of higher education has gone up higher than almost anything in the entire economy, including health care.  To suggest these situations are comparable is nonsense.  You want me to pay the inflation adjusted rate for school from 50 years ago?  Tell me where to send the check and forgive the balance.  I'll write it today.  Until something is done about the cost, the amount of these loans is monopoly money.  Nobody could have sincerely thought that all these kids could pay that back.  And that's not even considering the ones who couldn't graduate.

 

The fertility rate is at the lowest in all of U.S. history because my generation can't afford to have children.  If you think our deficit is huge now, wait until you see what Social Security will do to it 10 years from now with the older people retiring and no children to replace them as taxpayers.

Just now, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

It's hard to compare the situation 50 years ago with today. I came out of law school with $9k in loans which was significant, given that my first law position was $12k per year. But it was doable and straightforward; we budgeted and paid it off in about 4 years, and of course it was a worthwhile investment.There was no question of non-repayment back then. It allowed me to work only summers in law school. Without it, the outcome would not have changed ultimately for me, but it would have been harder.

 

But college costs are so much more now, well outstripping inflation, and it is certain that loan availability has driven tuition up. Whereas my loan was 3/4 of a starting salary, nowadays many loans far exceed a starting income. So I can't condemn outright some who ultimately don't repay. Not a simple issue; to me, not 'I paid, so they must pay.'

 

Just so we can put this in perspective, I came out of law school with over $200k in debt for having attended a public law school with in state tuition for 2/3 years.  My salary when I started at a law firm the day I was sworn in was $50k plus some bonus that never came.  I quit there and went to a government job that paid a straight $50k, plus they took over 9% off the top to pay for my pension.  Which means that your loans were 9 months of your pay whereas mine constituted over 5 years of mine.  My colleagues who went to private law schools owed over $300k when they graduated.  This is exactly what I was trying to explain to them above, it's good for us both to share our experience to put some actual mathematical perspective on the whole thing.

 

Obviously I didn't have the option to simply not eat for 5 years....or I might have considered it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, El Chapo said:
6 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

I mean no personal insult to you El Chapo and applaud your public service. If public service was the deal you made for schooling, that is fine. My issue is this vote getter of Biden's to pay off 813,000 loans don't appear to have the same conditions or he wouldn't have had to make the offer or get it approved by Congress, it would have happened automatically as yours did. Veterans aren't even a comparison. Veterans put up there lives for the few benefits they get. They didn't borrow funds agreeing to pay them back and now whine that the govt. should take care of it because they can't find a job doing whatever it was they spent time getting a degree in. So many kids back in my day went to college for the sole reason of avoiding the draft and now I/we should have to pay that debt.

Again, my sincere apologies if I insulted you, it was not my intention.

Expand  

 

The 813,000 number was created by the media.  It includes a considerable number of people whose loans were discharged by operation of laws that far predate Biden's presidency.  The media 1) wants you to be angry and 2) wants Biden to get political credit from his supporters.

 

Student borrowers do not borrow the funds "agreeing to pay it back."  They borrow money under conditions that are more like a social welfare program than a debt.  The government created these policies.

 

I'm not insulted one bit.  I think you and a lot of other people are under the misconception that a student loan is like a mortgage loan or a car note.  It isn't.  A student loan is nothing like those things, because it comes with all sorts of terms that could result in you not ever having to pay it back (e.g., disability).  Tell your mortgage company you're disabled and see if they still collect.  Then tell the judge the same thing when they foreclose.  You will get nothing.  Yet being disabled wipes your student debt.  And that's just one example.

 

5 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I agree perspective is important.  So why is it better for me to pay someone else's highly inflated education costs, via my taxes every year, than it is for the person who received the benefit paying those costs? (My taxes are also excessive and inflated).

 

If the borrowers majored/minored in a marketable field, and not some idealistic fad, and they took real classes, rather than international (travel) studies,  and they went out and got real a job afterwards, and not just a convenient one,  their college funding obligation should be fully payable.  If not, they made bad decisions and choices along the way, either about their education curriculum or about how they spent their money afterwards.  

 

But regardless, their obligations are theirs.  They signed the line, not me.  Seeing 30+% of everything I ever earned go to an insatiable governmental appetite for tax money, I don't feel charitable to cover for  poor, downtrodden individuals who bought showy new houses and BMWs and incurred huge credit card debt, instead of first paying off their loans.   

 

For 15 years after I finished my graduate degrees, I drove an aging Datsun pickup and lived with my MD wife in a 1,200 sf house on a $900/mo State salary, while we paid off her 7 years of medical school loans.   Been there, done that.  I guess we should have just stiffed the government and taxpayers.  

I apologize here if I am being unnecessarily abrasive and hard-hearted, but like many, I am a paying victim in this vote buying scharade.  

 

Expand  

 

I never said it was "better."  You're arguing with a straw man there.  Congress decided these policies for everyone.  I didn't decide them and I wouldn't have voted for any of them.

 

Your second paragraph is, in a word, wrong.  The price of higher education is ridiculous these days.  My degree is in economics.  Short of a few types of engineering, economics is the highest paying college major for initial entry salary.  I have serious doubts that I would have ever been able to pay my undergrad loans with the salary from my economics degree.  If I hadn't gone to graduate school, I would have gone to work for the fed or something to try to pay them or counted on them being forgiven after 25 years.  The government subsidized education to much and for so long, college is simply unaffordable to those who don't have their parents' money to attend.  

 

You can say I made a "bad choice" if you want to, but any other businessman who made a failed investment with other people's money in hopes of earning a greater income is allowed to file bankruptcy and get a fresh start.  Student loans are generally non-dischargeable, so not only did we get a raw deal where we're unable to pay, there is no relief available by the mechanism our society has for failed business decisions. 

 

FWIW: I am still driving the truck I bought on March 18, 2005 (it's the second longest relationship I have ever had).  To date, I have never had a secretary who didn't drive a newer car than I do, not in private practice and not in government service.  The nature of your comments suggests that you have no clue how insanely expensive higher education is now or why these forgiveness programs were even enacted.

 

If my profession paid anything like first year MDs are paid, I'd have paid off my student loans a long, long time ago.
 

I don't think you're abrasive or hard-hearted at all.  I do think you're sorely mistaken if you think we would have many basic government services that require higher education without these programs, though.  If you think somene would go to school and hitch up to a 1/4 million in debt to earn less than a first year nurse, I'm sorry to be the one to inform you that we wouldn't have any prosecutors from my generation without these programs.

I wasn't really referring to your situation or document commitments, of which I admit I am unfamiliar.   

But I'm not "wrong, in a word",  about big numbers of college students who take out loans that they don't intend to ever repay, to attend college for the social life or for something to do, and so they take minimal, easy course work for extended times (some never even finalize on a major course of study), or who sign up for multiple international travel "Cluster Courses" which are offered only as an excuse for overpaid professors to travel on salary with tax-deductable expenses.

All of that is all on taxpayers' backs.   

 

Regardless of Congress' lawmaking irresponsibility, there really are no free lunches.  If services or goods are being received by someone, then somebody IS paying for them.  If not the recipient, but others, like taxpayers, then you have a wealth redistribution regime that is more like Communism.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.