What is going on with student loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

Ah, but the government IS involved. Thanks to Obama.
And, I would argue that once the government took over the student loan program, the colleges saw no reason to rein in costs since they knew students would have easy access to money since it was given out by the govt. and not private lenders.

My son had a college loan from a private lender. It was about 2.8%. This was back in 2005. Obama ruined that.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/

And you were privileged to get that loan. Part of the problem is that some families could not get them and neither could their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

Ah, but the government IS involved. Thanks to Obama.
And, I would argue that once the government took over the student loan program, the colleges saw no reason to rein in costs since they knew students would have easy access to money since it was given out by the govt. and not private lenders.

My son had a college loan from a private lender. It was about 2.8%. This was back in 2005. Obama ruined that.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/

And you were privileged to get that loan. Part of the problem is that some families could not get them and neither could their kids.

Which is a good thing, because underprivileged families would and do end up struggling mightily to pay such loans back. It does them no good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

Ah, but the government IS involved. Thanks to Obama.
And, I would argue that once the government took over the student loan program, the colleges saw no reason to rein in costs since they knew students would have easy access to money since it was given out by the govt. and not private lenders.

My son had a college loan from a private lender. It was about 2.8%. This was back in 2005. Obama ruined that.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/

And you were privileged to get that loan. Part of the problem is that some families could not get them and neither could their kids.

Look at default rates on parent plus loans and come back.

[Anonymous]

There's always ROTC. Pays tuition, books, and stipend. Plus a job when you graduate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

Ah, but the government IS involved. Thanks to Obama.
And, I would argue that once the government took over the student loan program, the colleges saw no reason to rein in costs since they knew students would have easy access to money since it was given out by the govt. and not private lenders.

My son had a college loan from a private lender. It was about 2.8%. This was back in 2005. Obama ruined that.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/

And you were privileged to get that loan. Part of the problem is that some families could not get them and neither could their kids.

Which is a good thing, because underprivileged families would and do end up struggling mightily to pay such loans back. It does them no good.

So poor families shouldn't go to college? Wow. Marie....is that you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's always ROTC. Pays tuition, books, and stipend. Plus a job when you graduate.

Yep that's a fair exchsbge. If you are poor, you can be cannon fodder for all the wealthy elite kids who went to college and are in charge of policy.
Not to mention it is only recently that the government started programs to correlate veteran experience with private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's always ROTC. Pays tuition, books, and stipend. Plus a job when you graduate.

Yep that's a fair exchsbge. If you are poor, you can be cannon fodder for all the wealthy elite kids who went to college and are in charge of policy.
Not to mention it is only recently that the government started programs to correlate veteran experience with private sector.

And, you want the taxes of those soldiers paying for your tuition. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

Ah, but the government IS involved. Thanks to Obama.
And, I would argue that once the government took over the student loan program, the colleges saw no reason to rein in costs since they knew students would have easy access to money since it was given out by the govt. and not private lenders.

My son had a college loan from a private lender. It was about 2.8%. This was back in 2005. Obama ruined that.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/

And you were privileged to get that loan. Part of the problem is that some families could not get them and neither could their kids.

Which is a good thing, because underprivileged families would and do end up struggling mightily to pay such loans back. It does them no good.

So poor families shouldn't go to college? Wow. Marie....is that you?

Where did I say that?

I believe all this access to loans drives up tuition to extreme levels, making it harder for families of all income levels to pay as they go in cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

Ah, but the government IS involved. Thanks to Obama.
And, I would argue that once the government took over the student loan program, the colleges saw no reason to rein in costs since they knew students would have easy access to money since it was given out by the govt. and not private lenders.

My son had a college loan from a private lender. It was about 2.8%. This was back in 2005. Obama ruined that.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/

And you were privileged to get that loan. Part of the problem is that some families could not get them and neither could their kids.

Which is a good thing, because underprivileged families would and do end up struggling mightily to pay such loans back. It does them no good.

So poor families shouldn't go to college? Wow. Marie....is that you?

Where did I say that?

I believe all this access to loans drives up tuition to extreme levels, making it harder for families of all income levels to pay as they go in cash.

All families cant pay in cash regardless of "all this access" to loans. THe worst part are the rich people- you can find many on this website- that obscure their wealth for x number of years for FAFSA calculations. If colleges instituted a sliding scale for tuition would that be fair?

[Anonymous]

None of the arguments for leaving people saddled with college debt is compelling. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

Ah, but the government IS involved. Thanks to Obama.
And, I would argue that once the government took over the student loan program, the colleges saw no reason to rein in costs since they knew students would have easy access to money since it was given out by the govt. and not private lenders.

My son had a college loan from a private lender. It was about 2.8%. This was back in 2005. Obama ruined that.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/

And you were privileged to get that loan. Part of the problem is that some families could not get them and neither could their kids.

Which is a good thing, because underprivileged families would and do end up struggling mightily to pay such loans back. It does them no good.

So poor families shouldn't go to college? Wow. Marie....is that you?

Where did I say that?

I believe all this access to loans drives up tuition to extreme levels, making it harder for families of all income levels to pay as they go in cash.

All families cant pay in cash regardless of "all this access" to loans. THe worst part are the rich people- you can find many on this website- that obscure their wealth for x number of years for FAFSA calculations. If colleges instituted a sliding scale for tuition would that be fair?

Yes, if tuition were cheap enough students could pay with income in cash from summer jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

Ah, but the government IS involved. Thanks to Obama.
And, I would argue that once the government took over the student loan program, the colleges saw no reason to rein in costs since they knew students would have easy access to money since it was given out by the govt. and not private lenders.

My son had a college loan from a private lender. It was about 2.8%. This was back in 2005. Obama ruined that.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-created-student-loan-crisis-with-1-trillion-in-loans/

And you were privileged to get that loan. Part of the problem is that some families could not get them and neither could their kids.

Which is a good thing, because underprivileged families would and do end up struggling mightily to pay such loans back. It does them no good.

So poor families shouldn't go to college? Wow. Marie....is that you?

Where did I say that?

I believe all this access to loans drives up tuition to extreme levels, making it harder for families of all income levels to pay as they go in cash.

All families cant pay in cash regardless of "all this access" to loans. THe worst part are the rich people- you can find many on this website- that obscure their wealth for x number of years for FAFSA calculations. If colleges instituted a sliding scale for tuition would that be fair?

The worst part is the FAFSA almost always giving insanely high EFCs.

[Anonymous]

How about getting a job for a year or two? I know people who did that. Go to community college, too.

[Anonymous]

Have to hand it to GOP strategists. Biden's plan was to forgive loans for 50% of borrowers and then have the rich borrowers enter repayment again in August. When SCOTUS strikes this down then Biden will be resuming payments for about 45 million borrowers of all income levels which is going to create major problems for Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have to hand it to GOP strategists. Biden's plan was to forgive loans for 50% of borrowers and then have the rich borrowers enter repayment again in August. When SCOTUS strikes this down then Biden will be resuming payments for about 45 million borrowers of all income levels which is going to create major problems for Democrats.

I saw a press article stating that the administration is already looking at other statutory provisions to justify another debt cancellation should the order be struck down. It sounds like SCOTUS may find that the plaintiffs lack standing though.