<p>Yeah, that makes sense. Gives you more information about the borrower than the internet ever will. It’d probably be easier to tell the slackers from those who genuinely want to learn, but can’t for financial reasons. Also, multimonitor systems are awesome.</p>
<p>One thing I’m surprised that no one’s mentioned yet is community college. Save money, get guaranteed credit transfers to your state flagship (and maybe a reciprocity agreement or two for a local private/public). Yes, you’d be missing some of the college experience, but missing out on a few parties and club meetings is better than being $120k+ in the hole on graduation.</p>
<p>JNM - "kayf, unless I am misinterpreting your resentment, WHY would you be against some type of partial loan forgiveness in return for working in public service for a set period of time? This would be specifically for jobs/service in underrepresented, low-income areas? "</p>
<p>Becuase I have no faith, nada, zilch, that our government would limit it to underrepresented areas. The current program, for forgiveness after 10 years, has no such limit. Recent grads are standing in lines for “public service” jobs. These jobs pay market wages, and above market wages. Enough is enough for “public servants”</p>
<p>If gevernment have to pay for somebody’s college education (thru loan forgiveness), then it is discrimination against everybody else. Also, why then goverment would not pay for diamond rings? The diamond ring’s loans might be also high as well as fansy vacation loans. And how we can even distinguish if one decided to spend $8k on vacation instead of paying off student loan, that only means that we are suggesting for government to subsidize his vacation by “loan forgiveness”.
This is the reason why loans are not paid by 60 y o. They decided to spend money on something else and now we are asking government (which only means the rest of us, government does not have money, it has tax collection) to subsidize these people’s spending habits. Student Loan is turned around and become the mean of milking money from the rest of us, that is the real effect of “loan forgiveness” - supporting spending by people who should not be engaged in additional spending before they pay off the loan. My suggestion is opposite, make sure that student loan is paid in few years (2-5) after graduation. If one is not capable, then they have to take some private loans to pay off student loan and deal with collection agencies later if they cannot pay off private loans.</p>
<p>Whoa, wait a sec. I am as conservative & mistrustful of government as y’all are–we’re on the same page here. I just don’t think that the administration has any idea–IF they were to employ some type of loan forgiveness–how to do this in a fair & equitable manner, which means NOT penalizing the folks like us who take out loans but can/will pay them back. All I was saying was that the public service idea is something that is already out there & being discussed.</p>
<p>I read ALL of my loan documents, meticulously, but wasn’t mature enough to understand the ramifications of what I was reading-- not until the exit interview, at which point I had a panic attack and it was too late to do anything about it. Those numbers didn’t mean anything to me until I was older and knew better. And to be honest, had someone explained it to me earlier I suspect “magical thinking” would have kicked in. My parents should have just said NO. I just don’t think many children this age are capable of that kind of forethought… not without someone sitting down with them and showing them how much groceries, gas, utilities, etc are, to make (and research) a plan with them and make them stick to it unless they can present a VIABLE alternative, and, ultimately, to just say no. </p>
<p>I still remember my high school guidance counselor telling me, “chase the dream… if you get in, the money will be there.” EXCUSE ME??? It’s no wonder I was such a delusional 18 year old. ;)</p>
<p>Administration should NOT have to have any idea about anything but how to run army and police and take control of borders. The rest is NOT government’s business, health care, banks, education, can they even run Post Office effectively? They need to get out of all of this, leave us alone and make sure that things that are government’s responsibilty (army and police and take control of borders) are taking care of - they are NOT done that to our satisfaction, we have hired them to do so and they are NOT doing their job. I agree that anything that is suppose to be forgiven by government is in effect a PENALTY to the rest of us. IT IS OUR MONEY!!! We did not create government to take money from hard working citizens and give them to those who overindulging themselves or simply do not want to try, why would they if they have it free? Government is overstepping in many area, including Student Loans and by doing so, putting more and more control over our lives to purchase more votes/supporters for themsleves (their goal is to have a bit over 50% of us on their side, they are very close to that number, then we are really skrewed!!! History is a great educator, I wish more people see logical connections in historical lessons, not just a bunch of dates/names to remember. Many historical events are repeating and many of us do not put them in parallel at all. Open your eyes while it is not too late. If one society is using arms to achiave certain goals, it does not mean that another society cannot use money for the same goal. While arms can provide control, the same could be achieved thru money. Take them from 49% and give them to 51% of population, and you are at the top controling everybody. Much easier done than most think. And the top can continue pointing out that it is Student Loans’ situation fault, mortgage crisis fault, health care fault, Chinese fault,…previous administration fault…does it matter what they say,…all are untrue, all is just a painted picture for those who are listenning…your choice to do so but do not blame anytbody else at the end</p>
<p>You could always go and get a Finance for Dummies book at your library, but that would take precious time away from Tweeting and Facebooking. :D</p>
<p>That’s the problem, and you’re absolutely right. Kids are told from day one, “Follow your dream! Discover your passion! Just because you want it, you’ll get it! Who cares how much it costs, as long as you feel warm and fuzzy inside?” No one is, essentially, asking kids to make decisions for themselves. Their wishes are the parents’ commands, and if Child wants to go to the most expensive school in the nation just because, there’s no getting around it. “But it’s my dream, mom!!!”</p>
<p>One of the doctrines of bankrptcy and forgiveness of debt is that the person that is in debt and sees no way out has no incentive to produce and that clearing the debt gives them an incentive to be productive members of society again.</p>
<p>People can already declare bankrtupcty over many things and our government courts preside over the process. The government can already decide matters of loan forgiveness. This means that lenders have to be careful as to who they lend to or build default costs into their business model. I think that those that loan money to students for college expenses should express more care in making those loans and they will if their money is at risk. Right now, they are backstopped.</p>
<p>I spent hours researching and drawing up financial comparison charts trying to prove to my parents that my decisions made good financial sense, I just didn’t realize at the time that I was completely full of crap. In addition to taking away valuable tweeting time, Finance for Dummies would have meant admitting I don’t know exactly what I am talking about, and 18 year old Ema would never have done that!</p>
<p>I went through budgets with my kids over and over when they were in their teens. It would be fairly easy to do a computer model of a budget but I think that talking to a person, especially one that can say NO and explain the reasons why, is more effective.</p>
<p>Who are these “lenders”. (The feds have nationalized Educ loans. Lender = Federal Government.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Otherwise, the loans would not exist. No lender with a credit committee will loan money to an unemployed 18-year old, regardless of prospective major. None.</p>
<p>I would. Though my credit committee is pretty small. But then not all 18-year-olds are unemployed. I started working at 11 and had quite a few jobs under my belt by the time I was 18.</p>
<p>There is very little private money left, BC, at least without a cosigner, or government protection/guarantee. (The feds took over Ed loans ~3 years ago. Heck, they now even preclude credit cards to unemployed college kids.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many of us did. But that was back in the dark ages, when jobs for unskilled actually existed! :)</p>
<p>(Trying telling the kid in Detroit or Los Angeles to go find a job, with documentation and a W2, so s/he can qualify for an Ed loan.)</p>
<p>The problem with government money is that there seems to be very little oversight and guidance and that it tends to result in price inflation. But it appears that it is the only game in town. I don’t like the government backstopping private lending - it’s basically a no-win scenario for the lenders and they wind up doing the same bad job that the government does. If the private lenders want a no-win situation, then I’d say dump them - they are in business to price risk. This sort of thing did happen when there was local banking, right? When the loan manager knew the family, relatives and the student looking to borrow money.</p>
<p>Would you loan money to a niece or nephew that you knew was going to be successful because you know the parents and the student? Maybe it would be just easier to give them the money if you don’t need it back.</p>
<p>Way back when, Boston College gave me $1K grant, $1K loan and I had to come up with $1K on my own. It didn’t seem onerous to me and it was really easy to pay back. Why did they take a chance on me? These days, schools give out a lot more to promising students. Why do they take a chance on them? If a school would give out $50K, why wouldn’t they loan out that amount?</p>
<p>I’d say go back to more checks and balances in the loan process.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We didn’t have the kind of child labor laws back then either.</p>
<p>I’d guess that payroll processing was a lot simpler too. When I was 14, I’d get an envelope each week with cash in it - not a check or other piece of paper. That’s a lot simpler compared to modern payroll processing. I’d guess that there were far fewer regulations too.</p>
<p>Those times were actually tough - perhaps as tough as they are today. They certainly were for college graduates. Weren’t unemployment rates in the teens back then?</p>
<p>Most of that is piddly stuff at the national level in the US. Medicare and Social Security, along with military spending, are the national government’s biggest expenses.</p>
<p>“One of the doctrines of bankrptcy and forgiveness of debt is that the person that is in debt and sees no way out has no incentive to produce and that clearing the debt gives them an incentive to be productive members of society again.”</p>
<p>-Only if government is NOT involved in this process, otherwise it becomes a mean to greater control. Government is never ever ever has a goal of more productive society. If government is given more control than originally intended, watch out for extremely bad outcomes, do not have to wait much longer though…pretty soon we will be a historical example of that, not a hypothesis any more, we are very very close and many of us do not see it…good for them, blindness is a blessing…
BTW, Medicare and SSN are other (but much older) examples of what is government is NOT designed to do (one of them I have mentioned before as it is Health Care, as a total Helath Care will be a killer big time, implicitly and explicitly). Military spending is government responsibility though as it is one of primary government function, not feeding us, sheltering us, curing us, educating us, brainwashing us,…</p>
<p>Incorrect. A government does want a more productive society, because a more productive society will produce more wealth, which will result in more tax revenue for the government. Of course, poor policy choices by the government and others, or corrupt politicians making policy choices in their own self interest, or politicians making policy choices in the self interest of a narrow interest group, may prevent that from happening.</p>
<p>MiamiDap writes “(one of them I have mentioned before as it is Health Care, as a total Helath Care will be a killer big time, implicitly and explicitly). Military spending is government responsibility though as it is one of primary government function, not feeding us, sheltering us, curing us, educating us, brainwashing us,…”</p>
<p>The role of government (national, state, and local) is determined by its citizens. While you may have a manifesto of your beliefs in limited government it’s your opinion not some inalienable truth.</p>
<p>Fact - a government run health care system (and there are many different varieties around the world) costs less in aggregate than our current system AND provides the same health results. That doesn’t mean that we have to want such a system but we can make an informed choice, e.g., I’ll pay more to get xxxxx.</p>
<p>I’ll agree that subsidizing student loans and/or providing loans can be counter-productive as many for-profit “trade” schools exist solely to collect those government loans. If students have less access to education debt they’ll choose cheaper alternatives and universities will be forced to reduce costs. However, counties and states and their citizens have a huge vested interest in education as it increases growth and overall wealth.</p>
<p>"Originally Posted by MiamiDAP
Government is never ever ever has a goal of more productive society. </p>
<p>Incorrect. A government does want a more productive society"</p>
<p>-Just your opinion, not supported by any historical facts.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree that the role of govenrment is determined by citizens, the more citizens are getting out of “stash” a.k.a “other citizens’ money” a.k.a “money forcefully confiscated by tax law”, the more citizens will vote for the government that is seeking full control. This is our current direction, going to be there very fast by our own design, agree 100%.
However, historical evidence tells those who is making historical parallels that such a society results in lower level of living for each and every member of society for very simple reason: contributing members do not see much insentive to work hard as much of their earnings is taking from them…I am talking about devastation, not a bit lower incomes. “increases growth and overall wealth” - very laughable joke, yes, they promise it over and over again, it will never happen in this type of society when majority rely on government for happiness, it has never happened and never will, expect misery instead. Those who existed there, know exactly what I mean, but most do not understand the depth of this misery and that is why this discussion is completely futile and started by another lie from those who know that they do not tell the truth.</p>
<p>Because the obvious answer is that they only give “$50k” to a few students. The vast majority of private colleges are comprised of full pay students. Some as high as 65% full pay. They have no need to loan money to anyone.</p>
<p>But from a practical standpoint, the real issue is public colleges, which educates the vast majority of undergrads.</p>
In addition to taking away valuable tweeting time, Finance for Dummies would have meant admitting I don’t know exactly what I am talking about, and 18 year old Ema would never have done that!</p>