<p>A millionaire, who claims to have sacrificed in ways other folks can never understand and a student who is not a consumer of student loans both don't mind the student loan rate increases </p>
<p>Chickenhawks, who start wars yet have no family or friends that go, view VA benefits as just another form of welfare..</p>
<p>I think I see a pattern here.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p>I agree that the fixed rate is not a lot higher than the variable rate would have been, but that's not the whole story.</p>
<p>When the bill was under consideration, and then passed, the expected variable rate was a lot lower. Should congress be given credit for incorrectly predicting the rise in interest rates? I think not. Their intent was the same.</p>
<p>And yes, I do NOT expect the fixed rate to stay "fixed" if interest rates rise, at least not with the current regime. </p>
<p>Sarap,</p>
<p>Let me get out my sympathy rag for you. I feel tears coming.</p>
<p>You seem to forget that, while your INCOME tax rates are high, your overall tax burden is not that much higher than folks waaay down the ladder. If one includes the cost of sales taxes, propoerty taxes (even renters pay, just indirectly) and wage taxes, folks way down the ladder get hit pretty hard. And this is what has been so misleading about the Bushie discussions of tax burdens.</p>
<p>Oh yea, your last comment, "the sky is the limit" is increasingly not true. Turns out income mobility has sharply decreased in the US in recent years. Thems that got continue to get. The others don't. </p>
<p>Be appreciative that our economy has been so good to you. Lots of folks work as long hours as your hubbie (and in many of these families, it takes both spouses working. Do you work, too?) just to live passably.</p>
<p>Read my post again. I didn't ask for sympathy. We made choices, including many hard ones, informed decisions, and live quite happily with both the good and bad repurcussions, including our tax bills.</p>
<p>I beg to differ with your statement that my bill is not much higher. My overall tax burden, as both a percentage of income and in terms of real dollars, is much higher. I'm not for a moment saying people down the ladder don't get hit hard (to get to the top you have to climb all the rungs and I have not forgotten for a moment where I came from), and I certainly recognize that the amount of income left over after the tax burden allows us a lifestyle many envy. But trust me, it looks a lot easier from the outside looking in. I'm just increasingly tired of the attitude that if we were to just tax "the wealthy" more (because it is all our fault that others are struggling you know), we could solve all our woes- as well as the attitude that anyone is "entitled" to anything.</p>
<p>Where do you draw the line at what kids are "entitled" to in terms of education? I worked full time, went to school nights, and not to the school of my dreams. I went to the school I could pay for when a family emergency significantly changed my folks ability to contribute. </p>
<p>Is every kid entitled to go as a full time day student? And is it community college, or a 4 yr institution? A state school or private? What's the maximum amount any kid should have to come out of school in debt, and who gets to decide what that number is? Should every student come out debt free, or with no more than a years tuition in debt...and based on what tuition? Should they have to work full time, part time during school or not at all?</p>
<p>As for your ? about whether or not I work, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant outside the home :-)</p>
<p>Right now, no. (We've recently moved...again) But I have, including working opposite hours of my husband to avoid child care, and starting a cleaning business so I could take my kids with me. </p>
<p>Lastly, we are appreciative. But no one handed it to us and there was no luck involved. We made sacrifices, took calculated risks and worked hard for what we have. I expect others, my own kids included, to do the same. And if that means the only way to afford school is to go nights, or to the community college, or come out with loans, or whatever then that's what they need to do. Not walk around blaming the wealthy for tax cuts and higher interest rates.</p>
<p>sorry, dmd, but I don't buy the fact that 18 year olds are calculating interest rates in their senior year. Unfortunately, finance is not part of a HS curriculum, and the vast majority of kids have absolutely no idea on interest, much less compound interest.</p>
<p>Does the Great State of Washington not have spaces in community colleges? It's hard to beleive that a student who is eligible for U-Dub out of HS would not have the cc grades to enter as a transfer. </p>
<p>btw: rising college Frosh in our household that just signed up for new loans.</p>
<p>"As for warning people in February of something that will happen in July---many people begin to make college decisions several years out. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, applications for many state schools (and places have filled) have closed long before February..."</p>
<p>Dmd77, the notice did not go out the day the ... President signed the bill. At a minimum, the content of the Deficit Reduction Act was known months before that. As far as changes to the Higher Education Act, those were announced many, many months ago, and as far as 2002. </p>
<p>In addition, However, let's remember that WITHOUT the DRA a new rate would have been set at floating rates on July 1, 2006 - just as it has been done for years. Speaking about surprises, since the rate is set on 91 days T-Bill, it is not hard to see the directions of the rate changes. </p>
<p>Simply stated, many points of the full impact of this DRA are grossly misrepresented, starting with the "12.7 billion taken from the hide of taxpayers" I am still surprised why the critics stopped at that figure when they could have used the much larger figure that covers a ten year period.</p>
<p>The reality is that the budget numbers tell a different story as the 12.7 nillion is composed of budget savings and budget increases. On this issue, I don't reach the same conclusion as NMD that this bill was about socking the middle class. The elimination of numerous fees, the new restrictions imposed on lenders, and several smaller adders DO all benefit the borrowers as well as the taxpayers. However, eliminating billions of corporate handouts and adding 10 billion to the funding does not sound as good to the left tweeter. The devil is in the details but also is a misleading message. </p>
<p>In the end, this won't be about the truth, but about the perception of the truth. The same truth that won't make sending increased payments to the lenders any easier for borrowers. Especially when credit card rates and variable mortgage rates are climbing because of the same indexes. The fact that the second group is seen as an inexorable market consequence but the first as political persecution is nonetheless puzzling.</p>
<p>"Does the Great State of Washington not have spaces in community colleges? It's hard to beleive that a student who is eligible for U-Dub out of HS would not have the cc grades to enter as a transfer."</p>
<p>It's a nice thought, but UDub announced this year that, for the first time, they are restricting cc transfers. This allows to take many more high-income OOS transfers.</p>
<p>Here's an historical perspective on the 6.8%. Despite NMD comment on the lack of relevance of the tables I posted earlier, I'd like to point the rates that were in vigor during the period 1999-2000 and 2000-2001:</p>
<p>2000-01 8.19% (5.893 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)
1999-00 6.92% (4.621 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)</p>
<p>I am also pointing towards the reaction of the interest group when rates were set at 6.8%. Comparing the reaction to the earlier law and the DRA that includes severe restriction on fees goes a LONG way to explain the recent change of heart of lenders. Did they care about the rate of 6.8% being negative or did they care about the increased difficulty to gouge the students in route to a pay package in the hundred of millions (a la Lord?)</p>
<p>While House Republicans had favored a variable interest rate which would have allowed student loan borrowers to take advantage of market fluctuations the fixed rate is a reasonable compromise that maintains current law and offers predictability. Unfortunately, with the political season in full swing, some have attacked the fixed interest rate despite their previous support for the exact same policy. *The decision to move to a fixed 6.8 percent interest rate was reached in 2001 and enacted in 2002 through bipartisan negotiations (as part of S. 1762). * </p>
<p>Following is a sampling of Democrats and student groups who supported the 6.8 percent interest rate and exactly what they said.</p>
<p>WHO SUPPORTED IT?
Rep. George Miller (D-CA)
WHAT DID HE SAY?
In addition to extending lender subsidies, it cuts interest rates to students, *fixing the rates at 6.8 percent beginning in 2006, and will save the average student about $400. * Too often in Congress, the needs of the average people come last in line. My colleagues should be commended for assuring that this legislation meets the needs of students and their families. (Congressional Record, House of Representatives, 01-24-02)</p>
<p>WHO SUPPORTED IT?
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
WHAT DID HE SAY?
**And with interest rates going up - as they have after each of the Federal Reserve board's past 12 meetings - our bill fixes student loan rates today so that students won't be hit by high interest rates tomorrow.<a href="Washington%20Post%20Letter%20to%20the%20Editor%20by%20Sen.%20Enzi%20and%20Sen.%20Kennedy,%2011-08-05">/b</a></p>
<p>WHO SUPPORTED IT?
The State PIRGs Higher Education Project
WHAT DID THEY SAY?
Over the last several months, PIRG has worked closely with other student advocates and the lending community to develop a compromise that will deliver low cost loans to student borrowers and maintain the stability of the guaranteed student loan program. Were confident that S. 1762 does this and we applaud the passage of this provision. (Press Release: Student Loan Interest Rate Legislation [S. 1762] Will Make College More Affordable for Millions, 01-24-02)</p>
<p>WHO SUPPORTED IT?
United States Student Association
WHAT DID THEY SAY?
The advocates say they arrived at the proposed 6.8 percent rate by determining the average rate that borrowers would pay over the next 10 years, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, if the formula change were to take effect. Financially, we believe that this would be a very good deal for students, says Corye Barbour, legislative director for the United States Student Association. We also think that this would add much-needed simplicity to the student-loan program. (Burd, Lenders and Student Advocates Seek a Deal on Interest Rates, Chronicle of Higher Education, 10-12-01)</p>
<p>WHO SUPPORTED IT?
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
WHAT DID THEY SAY?
*The amendment provides after 2006 a fixed student loan interest rate of 6.8 percent which gives student borrowers an assured low interest rate on their student loans. (Letter, 01-24-02) *</p>
<p>WHO SUPPORTED IT?
American Council on Education
American Association of Community Colleges
Association of American Universities
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education
Consumer Bankers Association
Council of Graduate Schools
Education Finance Council
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs
Sallie Mae
The State PIRGs Higher Education Project
United States Student Association </p>
<p>WHAT DID THEY SAY?
Thank you, Congress. ** By passing the first major bill of the new year, S. 1762, you have made college more affordable for millions of American students and their families. <a href="Advertisement%20in%20Roll%20Call,%2001-21-02">/b</a></p>
<p>Several Washington State schools had a hard time even filling their classes this year. There is room for pretty much everyone that is really college material to go to one of the state schools.</p>
<p>Historical rates are relevant, in fact they are the whole story as far as I am concerned. The Fed Funds rate was 1% in 2003. In June 2004 the Fed began a series of 25 basis point rate increases that brought the Funds rate from 1% to the current 5.25%. I don't think you can blame the current administration for a rise in market interest rates. Subsidized student loans are nice. I borrowed at 3% (and 7%) when market rates were 20% in 1980.<br>
Changes in the Fed Funds rate, 2006
Date....... change ..... new rate
June 29 25 ... 5.25
May 10 25 ... 5.00
March 28 25 ... 4.75
January 31 25 ... 4.50</p>
<p>2005 </p>
<p>December 13 25 ... 4.25
November 1 25 ... 4.00
September 20 25 ... 3.75
August 9 25 ... 3.50
June 30 25 ... 3.25
May 3 25 ... 3.00
March 22 25 ... 2.75
February 2 25 ... 2.50</p>
<p>2004 </p>
<p>December 14 25 ... 2.25
November 10 25 ... 2.00
September 21 25 ... 1.75
August 10 25 ... 1.50
June 30 25 ... 1.25</p>
<p>2003 </p>
<p>June 25 ... 25 1.00</p>
<p>Except at the community colleges. Barrons is right - there is more and more room, as fewer students are able to afford it. Even UDub, the flagship school, has had no increase in in-state, first-year applicants, though there have been substantial increases in high-income OOS applicants, both as first years, and as transfers.</p>
<p>"sorry, dmd, but I don't buy the fact that 18 year olds are calculating interest rates in their senior year."</p>
<p>No, but their parents are.</p>
<p>As for the possibilities for transfer students into four-year colleges, this is the story at UWash main campus (as of 2003):
"One reason for her concern is that the UW will soon end its 15-year practice of automatic admissions for community-college transfers who have an associate's degree and a 2.75 grade-point average. Beginning next summer, community-college students must compete for the available transfer slots at the UW's Seattle campus." The article goes on to point out that spaces are increasingly scarce for high-demand fields like engineering. <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001815246_transfer15m.html%5B/url%5D">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001815246_transfer15m.html</a></p>
<p>It is very difficult to find direct info on the UW website about transfer, but the three people I know (anecdotal evidence is poor evidence) who have tried to transfer into UW in computer science have had to wait two to three years for a slot. Yes, they are in line, but.</p>
<p>But if you were a full-pay OOS trying to transfer into the same slot....</p>
<p>Barrons and Mimi,</p>
<p>The Washington school had fewer "applicants". They all will have full freshmen classes coming in. Fewer students applied due to costs and enterance requirements. The incoming classes are still sizeable, with some taking on more than previous years.</p>
<p>xiggie,</p>
<p>Here's the thing, I don't care about political parties, I'm neither a gop or demo, so when you try to take the arguement that way, you lose creditbility and become a party hack. </p>
<p>If we can dump a half Trillion into Iraq by 09, "We" can find a way to make college affordable for students and families of need. There is the market and there is the government. Why are government bonds AAA? :) because they are backed by the taxing authority of the government, thus really can never fail, till the government does. </p>
<p>The education president could have AT any time, created a better program or held off till he got one that better served Americans today and tommorrow. </p>
<p>That's what ****es me off, the government's hands are never tied, they can always change legislation or introduce new legislation to solve any problem. The government is not really subject to the market, unless they want to be. What the signature on the bottom tells me is that the education president doesn't see this as a problem when clearly it is.</p>
<p>You tend to complain about the prior administration when this one comes under fire. It often sounds like the speeder when caught by the police officer who whines "well, the guy before me was speeding too.." like that matters, he's got you. :) Is it unreasonable to expect our leadership to stand on it's own ideas and merits rather than blame the previous one? Our commander in cheif could have at any time done something different couldn't he?</p>
<p>"If we can dump a half Trillion into Iraq by 09, "We" can find a way to make college affordable for students and families of need."</p>
<p>There is absolutely no logical progression there. College is still mainly a state function and many states have very generous aid programs. I'd start there rather than expecting the federal government to solve the problem. With a few exceptions the fed gov does not operate any colleges.</p>
<p>"xiggie, Here's the thing, I don't care about political parties, I'm neither a gop or demo, so when you try to take the arguement that way, you lose creditbility and become a party hack." </p>
<p>Opi, there isn't much I can do if you refuse to READ what I write.</p>
<p>Hey xiggi, I think you outsourced me on this debate. Good job.</p>
<p>"Fewer students applied due to costs and enterance requirements."</p>
<p>That's what I said - am I missing something? At UDub, however, that picture is complicated further by the fact that they accepted OOS students at the expense of the community college transfers.</p>
<p>Sarap, if you don't think luck got you where you are you are either in deep denial or quite dense.</p>
<p>Nobody is denying the hard work, good choices, and obvious diligence that gets someone to the top of their field, so kudos to you and your husband for all of that.</p>
<p>But there are people who make all the right choices and worked just as hard as you who wake up one day with a diagnosis of MS, or who deliver a baby with Down's, or whose companies go down the tubes with their pensions (a la Enron). These folks don't begrudge you your financial security.... but when their circumstances change beyond their control and they try their level best to put up the good fight, our social contract can't start changing the rules on them mid-stream.</p>
<p>There are lots of hard-working, ambitious people who are trying hard to help their kids through college despite whatever setbacks they've endured.... and to callously assume that people whose situations looked like yours a few years ago but who are now looking at a very different financial position should just tell their teenagers, "sorry-- no State U. for you but suck it up at Secretarial school...." seems a little harsh.</p>
<p>People don't take out educational loans because they want to.... they do so because that's the only way to make the current system tenable. If your husbands company radically changed their accounting system back in February to make you pay taxes on his options right now, or started charging you face value of his benefits, you'd be crying foul... as well you should. People need more than a few months to restructure their financial lives.</p>
<p>And people with fewer assets might need a little more time than you.</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>Last time I checked FAFSA wasn't run by my state..:) The FEDs aren't involved or Can't be? :) pleease. It just a matter of want. </p>
<p>xiggies, I guess I would consider to be a hack when you write about the prior president when the current one has been in charge and can make changes. You try and pass it off as what the former did. I'm just telling you I don't care what the former did, what's the current one doing?</p>