NPR story on student loans

[Brisketexan 103139]

4 minutes ago, TexasBeta said:

I wonder what fully or just better state funding could do to these numbers. How much has the state of texas pulled from higher head since let’s say the mid 80’s. Which by the way was a great time to be on the 40, less the football experience.

It would help.  A storm of factors led to this shitty situation.  Reduced public funding, shitty changes to the model and costs of a university, ready free money that caused tuition inflation....and a dozen more.

[safe sex 11544]

Interesting POV and something I've heard as well. My neighbor's wife got a BSN and ultimately went into healthcare software marketing or something completely unrelated to nursing, but the folks who got a 2 year nursing degree kill it and make just as much as a BSN.
Why would you go to a 4 year university, incur the debt, for a BSN when you can go get a 2 year degree, on the cheap, and get to making real money ASAP? Because you can't be an Tri-Delt, I guess? (or whatever other "real college experience" people think is worth a full boat cost).

Well, ACC offers an RN to BSN degree path for a reason. Maybe in informatics you can make as much with an ADN (two year nursing degree), but bedside you stand a better chance of getting hired and starting at a higher pay rate with a BSN. It is much the same with an MSN versus a DNP. Qualification creep.

[Beau Vine 53625]

1 hour ago, TexasBeta said:

What schools like SFA and others like them - Sam Houston, etc need to do is cut their degree programs and unload what I would consider the dead weight driving their costs up. Start with most of the humanities. Simplify degree plans. You want a BA in Liberal Arts. Ok. You get history, English, a foreign language (4 Max), government, economics, sociology and psychology. You don’t need a 100 degree paths.

I was on our faculty senate's budget committee during 2009.  And I was the one who somehow got elected to be the one to attend the university budget meetings, which were pretty important with huge budget cuts coming.  Anyways, our provost was running one meeting and he was discussing ways to absorb budget cuts and he said, "I can promise you that under my watch, no academic programs will be cut!"  I wanted to just fucking kill him, because we're already a campus with a very lean budget, yet we still have numerous underperforming programs that have under 10 majors per year and they refuse to do anything about them.  And that provost is no longer here -- he got promoted to Vice Chancellor of the system.

Anyways, I agree with you completely and I'll say something I've said for years.  Take the TXST University System -- TxSt, Lamar, Sul Ross, SHSU -- not every school needs a French major or a Consumer Affairs major.  Partition some of those low-enrollment programs out exclusively to one school in the system -- Lamar gets French, so if you want to major in French, you go to Lamar.  Do the same thing with the non-flagship schools in the UT and A&M system.  For fuck's sake, we have something like 97 majors at Texas State and nearly that many master's programs.  That's ridiculous.  

[Hank Scorpio 17691]

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I was on our faculty senate's budget committee during 2009.  And I was the one who somehow got elected to be the one to attend the university budget meetings

So this is all your fault. 

[NWBuck 8511]

1 hour ago, TexasBeta said:

How much has the state of texas pulled from higher head since let’s say the mid 80’s.

Higher Head was a great Phish/Greatful Dead reggae cover band when I was in grad school.

[Eastwood 4394]

37 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I was on our faculty senate's budget committee during 2009.  And I was the one who somehow got elected to be the one to attend the university budget meetings, which were pretty important with huge budget cuts coming.  Anyways, our provost was running one meeting and he was discussing ways to absorb budget cuts and he said, "I can promise you that under my watch, no academic programs will be cut!"  I wanted to just fucking kill him, because we're already a campus with a very lean budget, yet we still have numerous underperforming programs that have under 10 majors per year and they refuse to do anything about them.  And that provost is no longer here -- he got promoted to Vice Chancellor of the system.

Anyways, I agree with you completely and I'll say something I've said for years.  Take the TXST University System -- TxSt, Lamar, Sul Ross, SHSU -- not every school needs a French major or a Consumer Affairs major.  Partition some of those low-enrollment programs out exclusively to one school in the system -- Lamar gets French, so if you want to major in French, you go to Lamar.  Do the same thing with the non-flagship schools in the UT and A&M system.  For fuck's sake, we have something like 97 majors at Texas State and nearly that many master's programs.  That's ridiculous.  

If you could go ahead and put the Nutrition and Food Science program out of its misery, that'd be great. Thanks in advance.

[Esque 135]

The federal government now expects to lose over $435 billion from the federal student loan program.  By comparison, private lenders lost $550 billion during the 2009 GFC.

I'm at a loss for words on how to express my frustrations with the federal government's spending and ineptitude at this time.  Use your imagination.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loan-losses-seen-costing-u-s-more-than-400-billion-11605963600?mod=hp_lead_pos1

[Bevo 13417]

3 hours ago, Esque said:

The federal government now expects to lose over $435 billion from the federal student loan program.  By comparison, private lenders lost $550 billion during the 2009 GFC.

I'm at a loss for words on how to express my frustrations with the federal government's spending and ineptitude at this time.  Use your imagination.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loan-losses-seen-costing-u-s-more-than-400-billion-11605963600?mod=hp_lead_pos1

^^^^^ I think the article below is the same one that you linked. It gave me a headache.

Costing U.S. More Than $400 Billion

November 21, 2020

in Economy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S. authorities stands to lose greater than $400 billion from the federal scholar mortgage program, an inside evaluation exhibits, approaching the scale of losses incurred by banks through the subprime-mortgage disaster.

The Training Division, with the assistance of two non-public consultants, checked out $1.37 trillion in student loans held by the government firstly of the 12 months. Their conclusion: Debtors pays again $935 billion in principal and curiosity. That would depart taxpayers on the hook for $435 billion, in line with paperwork reviewed by The WSJ.

The evaluation was based mostly on authorities accounting requirements and didn’t embrace roughly $150 billion in loans originated by non-public lenders and backed by the federal government.

The losses are far steeper than prior authorities projections, which usually measure how a lot the portfolio will value the federal government within the subsequent decade, not your complete lifetime of the loans. Final 12 months the Congressional Price range Workplace estimated that the student-loan program would cost taxpayers $31.5 billion, together with administrative prices.

 

After many years of no-questions-asked lending, the federal government is realizing that it has a pile of poisonous debt on its books. By comparability, non-public lenders misplaced $535 billion on subprime-mortgages during the 2008 financial crisis, in line with Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

The impact this time is completely different. The federal government, in contrast to non-public lenders, can borrow trillions of {dollars} at low charges to soak up the losses, with out inflicting a panic. However taxpayers will find yourself paying a value as a result of Congress should increase taxes, reduce companies or improve the deficit to cowl the losses.

The absence of a cataclysmic occasion just like the monetary disaster is eradicating the impetus for the federal authorities to vary its lending practices, which analysts mentioned have enabled schools to lift tuition far above the speed of inflation.

“There’s no market self-discipline right here,” mentioned Constantine Yannelis, a former Treasury Division official within the Obama administration who now teaches on the College of Chicago. “In 2007-2008, we noticed loads of lenders who had been making dangerous bets going below. There’s no power like that within the student-loan market.”

The federal government lends greater than $100 billion annually to college students to cowl tuition at greater than 6,000 schools and universities. It ignores elements equivalent to credit score scores and discipline of research, and it doesn’t analyze whether or not college students will earn sufficient after graduating to cowl their debt.

“We make no try to guage the standard of the borrower, the flexibility to repay, the effectiveness of the loans,” mentioned Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Price range Workplace who now leads the American Motion Discussion board, a conservative assume tank. “The taxpayer finally ends up selecting up the tab.”

Debtors with subprime credit score scores—indicating they’ve had earlier bother paying off debt—are among the many almost definitely to default, Federal Reserve research shows. Between 2005 and 2016, practically 4 in 10 scholar loans—most of them federal ones—went to debtors with credit score scores beneath the subprime threshold of 620, in line with a WSJ evaluation of information from the credit-rating agency Equifax Inc. That determine excludes debtors who lacked credit score histories. By comparability, subprime mortgages peaked at practically 20% of all mortgage originations in 2006.

For the reason that monetary disaster, non-public lenders usually originate loans solely to debtors with clear credit score and require cosigners, and default charges are far decrease than on federal loans.

Congressional Democrats have stepped up requires President-elect Joe Biden to make use of government motion to forgive scholar debt. Mr. Biden, a Democrat, has reiterated his assist for laws to forgive $10,000 for every borrower with a federal scholar mortgage.

The Trump administration has opposed wide-scale debt forgiveness. However the authorities is already successfully forgiving debt by means of packages often called income-based compensation, which require debtors to pay solely 10% of their discretionary revenue—outlined as adjusted gross revenue minus 150% the federal poverty line—after which forgive balances after 10, 20 or 25 years.

Anxious that authorities accountants had underestimated losses on scholar loans, the Training Division below Betsy DeVos employed FI Consulting to venture losses. It developed a pc mannequin to supply a way more detailed evaluation than prior authorities strategies to worth the portfolio. The accounting agency Deloitte was employed to assessment the mannequin. Neither contractor responded to requests for remark.

 

The consultants discovered that income-based compensation packages are a serious driver of projected losses. Some college students—notably these in graduate colleges, who in contrast to undergraduates face no limits on how a lot they’ll borrow for tuition—rack up massive money owed and then enroll in income-based repayment. Debtors in modest-paying jobs with much less debt have additionally used the packages to keep away from default. Debtors in income-driven compensation will repay, on common, 51% of their balances, whereas debtors in different plans will repay 80%, the Training Division’s evaluation exhibits.

In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of different debtors proceed to default on smaller quantities—usually below $10,000—after dropping out of neighborhood school or for-profit schools. Nonetheless others say they defaulted after being defrauded by their colleges and failing to land well-paying jobs of their fields of research.

[elfenix 34000]

whoever wrote that needs to get their money back for their degree. 

[52-80 18962]

On 11/19/2020 at 6:56 PM, mycox said:

Interest rates. How the hell is a student going to pay off a $80k loan with an 7% interest rate.

Plow the $80k loan check into Bitcoin.

Problem solved.

[Enchubben 5492]

On 11/19/2020 at 3:05 PM, Huckleberry said:

 Discharging the debt will spur the economy and make you more money in the long run than giving you back your loan money. 

Is this random conjecture or is there something to back this up?  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13267]

On 11/19/2020 at 5:08 PM, DonkeyCigars said:

Interesting POV and something I've heard as well. My neighbor's wife got a BSN and ultimately went into healthcare software marketing or something completely unrelated to nursing, but the folks who got a 2 year nursing degree kill it and make just as much as a BSN.

Why would you go to a 4 year university, incur the debt, for a BSN when you can go get a 2 year degree, on the cheap, and get to making real money ASAP? Because you can't be an Tri-Delt, I guess? (or whatever other "real college experience" people think is worth a full boat cost).

I would assume the BSN degree offers more long term career options. Either in management or offers the ability to switch careers later on. Like your neighbor that is probably earning double in healthcare IT marketing.

what would really blow your mind is when you run into MDs that are in IT or business consulting.

[Esque 135]

10 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Is this random conjecture or is there something to back this up?  

This has to be conjecture given there is no data and even then, any data presented would be guessing at best.

However, I understand the thought exercise IF (and that is a big IF) you already own assets.  I could understand a scenario in which households with student debt are more likely to put off major life events that drive essential goods consumerism.  Therefore, if you forgive their debt they are more likely to save up a down payment sooner, which means they can purchase a home sooner, which means they feel stable enough to get married sooner, and most importantly, have children sooner.  This in turn drives incremental consumerism and drives earnings, and thus dividends and asset prices.

The counter argument is the other group, who are not already substantial asset owners.  For example, if you're now 30 and you spent 22 - 26 working and paying your debt, 27 - 29 saving and investing some and now are well positioned are 30 to begin investing meaningful, this would seem extremely unfavorable for you.  This is going to have to be paid for somehow, which likely means a combination of increasing taxes and printing money, which is a negative real return.  That's not the best position for this group.

Also, I expect the first group would feel differently if it was more clear we were simply going to print this money out of thin air and devalue the currency, creating a material negative real return on current assets.

[Dahobbs 17088]

Hey, look what matters again. Shocking. I'd love to see a similar analysis over the last 4 years of expenditures. I'm sure there is a principled reason why those posts weren't made. 

[Huckleberry 32140]

39 minutes ago, Esque said:

This has to be conjecture given there is no data and even then, any data presented would be guessing at best.

However, I understand the thought exercise IF (and that is a big IF) you already own assets.  I could understand a scenario in which households with student debt are more likely to put off major life events that drive essential goods consumerism.  Therefore, if you forgive their debt they are more likely to save up a down payment sooner, which means they can purchase a home sooner, which means they feel stable enough to get married sooner, and most importantly, have children sooner.  This in turn drives incremental consumerism and drives earnings, and thus dividends and asset prices.

The counter argument is the other group, who are not already substantial asset owners.  For example, if you're now 30 and you spent 22 - 26 working and paying your debt, 27 - 29 saving and investing some and now are well positioned are 30 to begin investing meaningful, this would seem extremely unfavorable for you.  This is going to have to be paid for somehow, which likely means a combination of increasing taxes and printing money, which is a negative real return.  That's not the best position for this group.

Also, I expect the first group would feel differently if it was more clear we were simply going to print this money out of thin air and devalue the currency, creating a material negative real return on current assets.

First of all, most of your post is actually arguing for what I said. I guess you just missed the part where I said if he'd done anything worthwhile with his degree. If you have a degree from UT, have paid off your student loans, and don't own any assets then I think it's pretty obvious you haven't done anything worthwhile with it in the context of this discussion. 

Someone else has already addressed the silliness of your final paragraph. Printing money is apparently fine when it goes to bail out banks and the c-suite, but the horror of giving it to the consumer class who will actually inject it into the economy! Hopefully you move on to the second semester of economic understanding. 

[Eastwood 4394]

32 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Someone else has already addressed the silliness of your final paragraph. Printing money is apparently fine when it goes to bail out banks and the c-suite, but the horror of giving it to the consumer class who will actually inject it into the economy! Hopefully you move on to the second semester of economic understanding. 

For almost 4 decades now the bailouts and tax cuts have been handed out at the c-suite and corporate level under the theory that those cuts will make it all the way down to the rest of the economy. I think it's time to see what happens when it makes it directly into the hands of the consumer. I'm not even talking full bailout. I would like to see a TARP-esque type bailout where "troubled assets" are identified and then restructured to where payment each year doesn't exceed 5% of the person's net adjustable income for a period of 5 years or the remainder of their note's term, whichever is shorter.

Combine that with government set limits on amounts that can be borrowed depending on degree. The reality is that some of these departments and degree programs need to depend on charitable endowments rather than student loans to survive. If someone wants to go get a doctorate in Victorian literature, by all means, go with God, but it shouldn't be supported with $250k in government back student loans that will just be restructured into a payment program where most of it will be forgiven after 20 years, anyway. Let those programs survive the same way museums and city orchestras survive: good budgeting, lots of fundraising, and a little bit of income on the side.

[Enchubben 5492]

Paying off student loans does nothing to benefit people without college degrees that by and large also don’t benefit from market increases. Yet they help foot the bill.

If people can’t make ends meet because of federal student loan balances that surpass their monthly income, then they should apply for income based repayment plans that already exist. And maybe look into being a nurse.

And if we’re just going to throw $300B or whatever the number is at to people to buy consumer goods, then just distribute a couple grand to everyone and call it a stimulus package. It’ll get spent quicker that way.

[CooterBrown 17695]

what would really blow your mind is when you run into MDs that are in IT or business consulting.

My neighbor is an MD but has never practiced medicine. Instead founded a software company developing language software for autism patients.

[Esque 135]

On 11/22/2020 at 5:31 PM, Huckleberry said:

Someone else has already addressed the silliness of your final paragraph. Printing money is apparently fine when it goes to bail out banks and the c-suite, but the horror of giving it to the consumer class who will actually inject it into the economy! Hopefully you move on to the second semester of economic understanding. 

I didn't realize Shaggy had become this sensitive over the last few years.  I wasn't even advocating one position or the other, rather just presenting how I understand how different people could have different opinions and thus positions.

For what it is worth, I don't believe the federal government should be bailing out corporate entities to the extent they have.  The equity holders should take the bath and reset shareholder equity to the bondholders, even if that is a messy process.  But we should also be responsible and differentiate debt versus grants.  The federal government has the (bad) habit of over lending to those that have made poor decisions.  What is being contemplated here are large scale grants, which has not been on the table until very recently and even then limited through the PPP program.

 

[Bevo 13417]

On 11/22/2020 at 7:03 PM, Enchubben said:

Paying off student loans does nothing to benefit people without college degrees that by and large also don’t benefit from market increases. Yet they help foot the bill.

If people can’t make ends meet because of federal student loan balances that surpass their monthly income, then they should apply for income based repayment plans that already exist. And maybe look into being a nurse.

And if we’re just going to throw $300B or whatever the number is at to people to buy consumer goods, then just distribute a couple grand to everyone and call it a stimulus package. It’ll get spent quicker that way.

The people needing student loan help vote and the split is probably 60%/40% Dem to Pub. But my reason for being for it is that student loan debt or more importantly school costs are a menace to society. My dad got out of med school with no debt and then did slave labor for residency and internships. We were middle class for maybe 10 years and then we were upper class. Now, that same person will come out with $500K in student loans at 9% interest and will have $45K in interest accruing or about $4K per month on $200K income which is maybe $10K/month after taxes. So, they do income based reimbursement and pay $2K a month in student loan payments and after 10years, they have perhaps $700K in student loan debt and sit there and wonder if it makes more sense to wait 15 years longer to have the debt disappear when they are 55 years old and eligible for Medicare. So the American dream is gone not just for the middle class but for the lower upper class as well. That is BS and totally unnecessary. Costs have to be reeled in and people who have already been scammed by universities need assistance so they can realize what their parents realized. If the problem isn't addressed now, it will just get worse to where it can literally ruin the US economy.

[Brisketexan 103139]

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

Costs have to be reeled in and people who have already been scammed by universities need assistance so they can realize what their parents realized. If the problem isn't addressed now, it will just get worse to where it can literally ruin the US economy.

This.  This is the problem.

Again, 30 years ago, you could attend college and pay for it by working 26 hours a week and all summer.  Now, you would have to work 59 hours a week and all summer.

The policy goal here isn't and doesn't have to be "free college for all!  No consequences!"  It would be fanfuckingtastic if we just got it back to where it was 30 years ago -- affordable college for all, you can work and put yourself through school.  Because a system built on costs on a continuous upward trajectory, and loading up what SHOULD be our most reliable consumers with staggering debt (so they can't fully participate in the economy) is killing us.

We can talk about fairness, what about the people who got loans and paid them, and all that shit to our heart's content.  But that doesn't change the fact that the current system is killing us, killing our economy, and dragging us all down with it.  It has to change.  It has to stop.

[Wanker Bob 379]

On 11/22/2020 at 4:56 PM, Dahobbs said:

Hey, look what matters again. Shocking. I'd love to see a similar analysis over the last 4 years of expenditures. I'm sure there is a principled reason why those posts weren't made. 

Printing money to cover the 2-3 Trillion over 10 years left to big corporations to pocket and pay for stock buybacks was no big deal. Few hundred billion for righting a huge governmental fuck up in managing higher education regulation is gonna devalue the currency beyond repair. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  This is the problem.

Again, 30 years ago, you could attend college and pay for it by working 26 hours a week and all summer.  Now, you would have to work 59 hours a week and all summer.

The policy goal here isn't and doesn't have to be "free college for all!  No consequences!"  It would be fanfuckingtastic if we just got it back to where it was 30 years ago -- affordable college for all, you can work and put yourself through school.  Because a system built on costs on a continuous upward trajectory, and loading up what SHOULD be our most reliable consumers with staggering debt (so they can't fully participate in the economy) is killing us.

We can talk about fairness, what about the people who got loans and paid them, and all that shit to our heart's content.  But that doesn't change the fact that the current system is killing us, killing our economy, and dragging us all down with it.  It has to change.  It has to stop.

If you have the votes to do something without the glut of people who paid their loans and want some remedy, great! March onward. If not, and the unfairness is a politics blocker, then you have to have a conversation about some sort of remedy. Seems to be pretty simple math.

[burntorangebongos 10641]

But that doesn't change the fact that the current system is killing us, killing our economy, and dragging us all down with it.  It has to change.  

================

This right here. Back a long time ago, my parents paid $4 dollars a semester hour for their college tuition and were able to put 4 daughters through college at the same time because the tuition was still $4 per semester hour when they went to college. The state of Texas USED to believe in higher education being affordable for its citizens and backed that up by subsiding it so the costs to Texans were affordable. During that time, there was so much growth and Texas gained in stature on the national stage. Imagine if we had kept emphasizing the importance of affordable education instead of moving in the direction that we did? How powerful would we be with a more educated citizenry?  If we just kept putting our money into human capital, we would have been so much better off and all those people wouldn't have  the debt they do, they would be able to move the economy forward without being in a big fucking hole. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by burntorangebongos

[Foosters 17624]

This seems fine

[elfenix 34000]

conservatives whining about fairness is fucking rich

[TwiceHorn 30715]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

If you have the votes to do something without the glut of people who paid their loans and want some remedy, great! March onward. If not, and the unfairness is a politics blocker, then you have to have a conversation about some sort of remedy. Seems to be pretty simple math.

Well, not all people who paid their loans are deserving of some massive credit.  Loans under 50k aren't really that significant.  You haven't been able to buy a house for 50k for the last 30 years, but you could work your way through college, as brisket described, and you could make up any slack with a few thousand in student loans.

Now, if your loans are over 100k, or some larger number that approaches mortgage size, someone who paid that off maybe deserves some consideration, as well as someone who is stuck with that kind of student debt.

Hell, forgive everything over some number like 100k or so.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

We had loans and lived pretty lean for quite awhile but I sure as heck don’t resent negating some of this student loan debt just because we paid ours. 
 

As @burntorangebongossaid, it was subsidized at a much higher rate and a large percentage of the taxpayers in Texas wouldn’t have attended college themselves.

In addition, not all the debt is related to “poor choices” and one of the reasons that DeVos ended up before the House IIRC was because the Dept of Ed screwed up so badly on the teacher/debt agreements for loan forgiveness. It’s just messed up in so many ways. Like healthcare, I don’t believe it is good for America when education is ‘predatory’ and that is what it’s become. 

[Biff Tannen 44917]

12 hours ago, Bevo said:

The people needing student loan help vote and the split is probably 60%/40% Dem to Pub. But my reason for being for it is that student loan debt or more importantly school costs are a menace to society. My dad got out of med school with no debt and then did slave labor for residency and internships. We were middle class for maybe 10 years and then we were upper class. Now, that same person will come out with $500K in student loans at 9% interest and will have $45K in interest accruing or about $4K per month on $200K income which is maybe $10K/month after taxes. So, they do income based reimbursement and pay $2K a month in student loan payments and after 10years, they have perhaps $700K in student loan debt and sit there and wonder if it makes more sense to wait 15 years longer to have the debt disappear when they are 55 years old and eligible for Medicare. So the American dream is gone not just for the middle class but for the lower upper class as well. That is BS and totally unnecessary. Costs have to be reeled in and people who have already been scammed by universities need assistance so they can realize what their parents realized. If the problem isn't addressed now, it will just get worse to where it can literally ruin the US economy.

Brother?  I lived this as well. 

[dcar00 13861]

13 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  This is the problem.

Again, 30 years ago, you could attend college and pay for it by working 26 hours a week and all summer.  Now, you would have to work 59 hours a week and all summer.

The policy goal here isn't and doesn't have to be "free college for all!  No consequences!"  It would be fanfuckingtastic if we just got it back to where it was 30 years ago -- affordable college for all, you can work and put yourself through school.  Because a system built on costs on a continuous upward trajectory, and loading up what SHOULD be our most reliable consumers with staggering debt (so they can't fully participate in the economy) is killing us.

We can talk about fairness, what about the people who got loans and paid them, and all that shit to our heart's content.  But that doesn't change the fact that the current system is killing us, killing our economy, and dragging us all down with it.  It has to change.  It has to stop.

yeah certain people that work for Universities that make good money, have excellent benefits, and nice retirements aren't gonna go along with your big idea here.  Like everything state run it always ends up getting fucked up.  I guess the xanadu of higher ed being a calling to advance society kinda blew up.  Private universities had to love this shit.  they got to raise all their prices as well.

I'm all for it as long as the govt can pay me back for what I've helped my kids(meaning the University)with.  Maybe a tax write off for a certain number of years.  

They could forgive the interest and make them pay the principal and after a certain number of years you start paying a penalty. Forgiveness of interest should only be for tuition costs. Also, any loans for beyond bachelors are an absolute no go for me.    Back in the day I heard(allegedly) you could work strip clubs to save up for your law degree.

As to the dragging down our economy. how many people are there who have graduated college have loans they can't pay but are employed? 

Edited November 26, 2020 by dcar00

[Enchubben 5492]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

The people needing student loan help vote and the split is probably 60%/40% Dem to Pub. But my reason for being for it is that student loan debt or more importantly school costs are a menace to society. My dad got out of med school with no debt and then did slave labor for residency and internships. We were middle class for maybe 10 years and then we were upper class. Now, that same person will come out with $500K in student loans at 9% interest and will have $45K in interest accruing or about $4K per month on $200K income which is maybe $10K/month after taxes. So, they do income based reimbursement and pay $2K a month in student loan payments and after 10years, they have perhaps $700K in student loan debt and sit there and wonder if it makes more sense to wait 15 years longer to have the debt disappear when they are 55 years old and eligible for Medicare. So the American dream is gone not just for the middle class but for the lower upper class as well. That is BS and totally unnecessary. Costs have to be reeled in and people who have already been scammed by universities need assistance so they can realize what their parents realized. If the problem isn't addressed now, it will just get worse to where it can literally ruin the US economy.

Paying people's current debts does ZERO to fix the rising cost of education. It makes the problem worse. 

Call me selfish, but worrying about $500K in student loans for doctors that are making a cool $200K - $250K post residency seems foolish. If they are making that much money and only putting $2K a month towards student loans then that's on them.

On 11/25/2020 at 9:23 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, not all people who paid their loans are deserving of some massive credit.  Loans under 50k aren't really that significant.  You haven't been able to buy a house for 50k for the last 30 years, but you could work your way through college, as brisket described, and you could make up any slack with a few thousand in student loans.

Now, if your loans are over 100k, or some larger number that approaches mortgage size, someone who paid that off maybe deserves some consideration, as well as someone who is stuck with that kind of student debt.

Hell, forgive everything over some number like 100k or so.

So in the example above, med school now costs $100K? We're going to subsidize 80% of the student loan cost for the profession that pays out $250K a year by their early 30's?

[Bevo 13417]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

Paying people's current debts does ZERO to fix the rising cost of education. It makes the problem worse. 

Call me selfish, but worrying about $500K in student loans for doctors that are making a cool $200K - $250K post residency seems foolish. If they are making that much money and only putting $2K a month towards student loans then that's on them.

I don't think you should be worried about it. Doctors, Dentists, MBAs and Attorneys aren't going to revolt. But I'll run some quick numbers for you just for edification.

$700K in student loans making $250K at 33, the average age of new doctors. $700K at 9% interest is $63K in interest and $70K in principal for $133K per year or $11K per month. This will allow you to break even at 43yrs old. Then you can afford your first home at the same time your kids are going to college. Those kids of course are going to be on their own to pay for tuition so if they want to become doctors, tuition for their 4 years of undergrad need to be added to their debt which effectively doubles their debt.

If that system seems good to you, I am sure you are okay with an average annual rise in tuition of 8%. So in 2022, you may be looking at $850K in debt by the time you begin making money or $77K in interest and $85K in principal, $162K total. Oh, and btw, salaries for GPs, Pediatricians, Neurologists, Psychiatrists, Internists, Hospitalists, etc. are declining about .4% annually. So doctors after tuition expenses might be making $70K a year before taxes until they are 43 and their kids begin college. I understand that you don't care about the quality of doctors treating you but this might cause it to decline. Especially when you consider that inflation is at 1.5% so that $70K may be below the poverty rate 23 years from now for college kids thinking of entering the profession.

Personally, I think that is a messed up system for everyone attending college these days. Rice, Tulane, SMU, TCU, Emory, Vanderbilt and basically every private school in the country is charging $50K in tuition annually with books, room and board adding another $15K. At $65K per year and interest accruing, they are in the same boat as doctors but without the $250K in income to help pay for it.

I agree with you that paying off debt, doesn't fix the problem of out of control tuition. I agree with you that paying off debt is counterproductive. And I agree with you that something needs to be done with out of control tuition. But, I don't agree with you that having an entire generation suffer and in the process killing our economy is the right way to go. I think both problems need to be addressed.

I'm surprised that the situation isn't affecting you personally.  I read an interesting blurb that stated that it is hurting the older generation more than kids. Adults are securing the student loans of their kids and are now on the hook for their debt. So they are getting saddled with debt at about the time they are beginning to retire. I hope their kids are understanding and put them up in their apartments as their parents reverse mortgages go south.

Here is the blurb: Baby boomers owe an average of $75,000 in student loans, compared with $69,000 among those from Generation X and $52,000 among millennials, according to this year's Fidelity Investments 2020 Student Debt Snapshot. The high debt load among baby boomers might be explained by their use of Parents PLUS loans for their children, Forbes reports. Splash Financial founder and CEO Steve Muszynski said parents should look for alternatives, such as grants, while those who already have Parent PLUS debt should try to refinance their loans to secure a lower interest rate.

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Bevo

[TwiceHorn 30715]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

Paying people's current debts does ZERO to fix the rising cost of education. It makes the problem worse. 

Call me selfish, but worrying about $500K in student loans for doctors that are making a cool $200K - $250K post residency seems foolish. If they are making that much money and only putting $2K a month towards student loans then that's on them.

So in the example above, med school now costs $100K? We're going to subsidize 80% of the student loan cost for the profession that pays out $250K a year by their early 30's?

I don't think anyone here is arguing for a loan forgiveness without massive reform of student lending and tuition costs in some form or fashion.

So, no, it would not be some ongoing forgiveneness to my mind.  It would be a one-time deal with a curtailment of the availability of student loans.   I'm not sure what you do directly to tuition, maybe just let the lack of available tuition dollars take care of that.

[Enchubben 5492]

Spoiler

51 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I don't think you should be worried about it. Doctors, Dentists, MBAs and Attorneys aren't going to revolt. But I'll run some quick numbers for you just for edification.

$700K in student loans making $250K at 33, the average age of new doctors. $700K at 9% interest is $63K in interest and $70K in principal for $133K per year or $11K per month. This will allow you to break even at 43yrs old. Then you can afford your first home at the same time your kids are going to college. Those kids of course are going to be on their own to pay for tuition so if they want to become doctors, tuition for their 4 years of undergrad need to be added to their debt which effectively doubles their debt.

If that system seems good to you, I am sure you are okay with an average annual rise in tuition of 8%. So in 2022, you may be looking at $850K in debt by the time you begin making money or $77K in interest and $85K in principal, $162K total. Oh, and btw, salaries for GPs, Pediatricians, Neurologists, Psychiatrists, Internists, Hospitalists, etc. are declining about .4% annually. So doctors after tuition expenses might be making $70K a year before taxes until they are 43 and their kids begin college. I understand that you don't care about the quality of doctors treating you but this might cause it to decline. Especially when you consider that inflation is at 1.5% so that $70K may be below the poverty rate 23 years from now for college kids thinking of entering the profession.

 

Where are you seeing $700K in student loan debt and 9% rates? Is that normal? Everything I can see online shows average medical school debt a third of that figure which seems to mirror medical school tuition and room and board.  This of course does not include undergrad, but also doesn't include items like, parental assistance, financial aid or scholarships, or the ability to work part time during undergrad.

How many doctors do you know that can't afford a home at until 43? I probably only know a handful whom had to fully pay their own way, but each one in their mid 30's has a pretty nice home, lives a more lavish lifestyle than I do and are on their way to surpassing my annual savings by the time they hit 40.  Show me a doctor that is struggling to get by until they are 40 and it will be the first I've ever met.

I am actually ok with some student loan principal forgiveness or maybe full interest forgiveness if that can be done.  I'd prefer for it to be restricted as hell for certain degree plans, for people that have a good initial payment history, and maybe some sort of graduating scale based on other factors like type of employment.

[Sawbonz 26735]

On 11/22/2020 at 6:23 PM, Eastwood said:

For almost 4 decades now the bailouts and tax cuts have been handed out at the c-suite and corporate level under the theory that those cuts will make it all the way down to the rest of the economy. I think it's time to see what happens when it makes it directly into the hands of the consumer. I'm not even talking full bailout. I would like to see a TARP-esque type bailout where "troubled assets" are identified and then restructured to where payment each year doesn't exceed 5% of the person's net adjustable income for a period of 5 years or the remainder of their note's term, whichever is shorter.

Combine that with government set limits on amounts that can be borrowed depending on degree. The reality is that some of these departments and degree programs need to depend on charitable endowments rather than student loans to survive. If someone wants to go get a doctorate in Victorian literature, by all means, go with God, but it shouldn't be supported with $250k in government back student loans that will just be restructured into a payment program where most of it will be forgiven after 20 years, anyway. Let those programs survive the same way museums and city orchestras survive: good budgeting, lots of fundraising, and a little bit of income on the side.

Sorry if this has been discussed but on NPR on Wednesday they had someone saying that something like 90% of loans at risk or in default are balances under 20K. The reason is these are mostly folks that never finished their degrees and cannot afford these (relatively) small payments. 
 

I would be for a blanket forgiveness of up to 20k. that would take care of all of the most in need, and give everyone else a bit of a break. I really don’t have much sympathy for folks who got a four year private college degree in something that is only going to earn them about 30,000 a year. I also don’t have any sympathy for folks that got a private undergrad and then private law school or medical school degree that starts them out 250k in the hole  

 

[SaucyJack 3468]

How 'bout 10k forgiveness, and 100% tax credit on all interest. Starter kit.  

[Bevo 13417]

35 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

How 'bout 10k forgiveness, and 100% tax credit on all interest. Starter kit.  

And interest fixed at some number below 3%.

I think the final bill will be something like that. But, as Enchubben stated such a bill will do more harm than good if escalating tuition rates are not addressed.

[wildcat09 28387]

 

We could live in a country where shit like this doesn't happen. We choose not to, because we prefer to let a few dozen people hoard unimaginable levels of wealth.

[tx 3 putt 74760]

I donated to her go fund me last night. it's gone through the roof, good for her 

damn, it's gone up $5000 in the past 15 mins i bet 

Edited February 9, 2021 by tx 3 putt

['stache 21489]

On 11/28/2020 at 3:19 PM, SaucyJack said:

How 'bout 10k forgiveness, and 100% tax credit on all interest. Starter kit.  

 

On 11/28/2020 at 3:58 PM, Bevo said:

And interest fixed at some number below 3%.

I think the final bill will be something like that. But, as Enchubben stated such a bill will do more harm than good if escalating tuition rates are not addressed.

This. I could really use the interest deduction not being limited. The income level for the phase out should also be raised. The size of loans needed these days or even 15 years ago are still stiffling people with decent income. I wish they could find a way to add private loans to this plan, even if it means direct payments from the government to the lenders. I refinanced my massive loans a few years for a better rate and to accelerate payment. I only have one smaller loan still with the feds so the benefit would be pretty limited for me.

[Captainant 26861]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

This. I could really use the interest deduction not being limited. The income level for the phase out should also be raised. The size of loans needed these days or even 15 years ago are still stiffling people with decent income. I wish they could find a way to add private loans to this plan, even if it means direct payments from the government to the lenders. I refinanced my massive loans a few years for a better rate and to accelerate payment. I only have one smaller loan still with the feds so the benefit would be pretty limited for me.

Between my undergrad debt and my wife's lawschool debt we basically have a second mortgage. I can't imagine having all that space in the monthly budget would be like

[Brisketexan 103139]

28 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

We could live in a country where shit like this doesn't happen. We choose not to, because we prefer to let a few dozen people hoard unimaginable levels of wealth.

Gofundme is a policy tool.  Seriously, crowdsourcing this shit is our national policy.

Yeah, we're heaven on earth compared to.....most every western democracy.  Fuck.

['stache 21489]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Between my undergrad debt and my wife's lawschool debt we basically have a second mortgage. I can't imagine having all that space in the monthly budget would be like

Yup, my loans are significantly more than my mortgage. I've had to hold back upgrading my home with my growing family because of my student loan debt. I would also add to the economy a lot more through vacations and entertainment if I had extra disposable income. The "means testing" of these things make sense to some extent (millionaires don't need the assistant), but there are plenty of people making low 6 figures that are surviving just fine, but these payments should be not only to help people who are in dire straights, but could also help boost the economy for people in our situations. 

[tx 3 putt 74760]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

We could live in a country where shit like this doesn't happen. We choose not to, because we prefer to let a few dozen people hoard unimaginable levels of wealth.

 

she's closing in on a $100k. She was at $30k earlier today 

[TexArcher 36902]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

We could live in a country where shit like this doesn't happen. We choose not to, because we prefer to let a few dozen people hoard unimaginable levels of wealth.

It's not just us.  I read an article recently that said the 50 richest people on Earth have more wealth than the bottom 50% of all people on Earth.  And there are quite a few Chinese and other nationalities in that top 50.

It's disgusting.

Edited February 10, 2021 by TexArcher

[Hank Scorpio 17691]

Agreed. Filthy Chinese. 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Yup, my loans are significantly more than my mortgage. I've had to hold back upgrading my home with my growing family because of my student loan debt. I would also add to the economy a lot more through vacations and entertainment if I had extra disposable income. The "means testing" of these things make sense to some extent (millionaires don't need the assistant), but there are plenty of people making low 6 figures that are surviving just fine, but these payments should be not only to help people who are in dire straights, but could also help boost the economy for people in our situations. 

Meaning your payment or loan balance? Or both?  I thought you went to OSU?

['stache 21489]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Meaning your payment or loan balance? Or both?  I thought you went to OSU?

Monthly payment. I also went to SMU for law school.

[MeerkatBong 115]

Is we getting $10k in student loan relief or ain't isn't we?

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135940851/student-debt-relief-biden-blocked-texas-district-court

[Longhorn_Fan68 33693]

crazy how the republicans try to push away potential younger voters at every turn with their bullshit. it's clear the powers that be only care about short term gain and pain and not long-term viability. pretty stunning to watch, really