4 ms·

I am glad this measure exists for the disabled Americans being shaken down to pay down loans they cannot pay or have dissolved in bankruptcy. However, as a pro

I am glad this measure exists for the disabled Americans being shaken down to pay down loans they cannot pay or have dissolved in bankruptcy. However, as a professional with student loans, I will be furious until the day I pay off my final loan at the 6.55% I am paying. I could get a car for cheaper. And it is doubly ridiculous that federal loans can be farmed out to private companies, which, spoiler alert, exist to make profits, not an educated workforce! As much as I would love to stop paying $300 every month (and every tax refund till 2020), I am not that distressed about paying back an expensive and lucrative education. However, the use of private companies charging usurious rates is simply wrong.

jonknee 11y ago
> However, as a professional with student loans, I will be furious until the day I pay off my final loan at the 6.55% I am paying. I could get a car for cheaper. And you should be able to get a car (or house!) for cheaper because those are items that can be sold to cover the outstanding loan balance. Secured credit is always cheaper.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  So should I try and sell my experience in a Shakespeare class on the cheap? My professor was pretty terrible.
- joeblossom 11y ago
  It'd be one thing if student loans were true unsecured debt but they're not. The government backs most student loans (even private ones) and they are not dismissible through bankruptcy. So, in some ways they're more "secure" than a car/house/etc. https://enlightenme.com/secured-and-unsecured-debt/ https://enlightenme.com/secured-and-unsecured-debt/ (there is a mountain of other resources on student loan debt and how it differs)
ctlby 11y ago
> I am glad this measure exists for the disabled Americans being shaken down Silly hyperbole. They're simply being asked to pay for a product they consumed. > the use of private companies charging usurious rates is simply wrong. Sounds like your complaint is less with "usury" than with private enterprise.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Correct, my discomfort with government functions being farmed out to private corporations which add cost and no value clearly indicates that I am a red-faced Commie.
- mywittyname 11y ago
  Lending comes with inherent risk: if you lend out money, there's a chance that you'll never get it back. That's part of why interest is paid on debt.
  - ctlby 11y ago
    Of course. But in this case, this debt is non-dischargeable, so the lender (the government!) is asserting its right under the law--a law that the student should have been aware of before rushing off to expensive, no-name liberal arts university.
    - sp332 11y ago
      This doesn't apply only to expensive universities. Or no-name universities. Or liberal arts universities. Or universities that people "rushed" to (that's a new one on me - how long does one have to delay their higher education before you deem it "not rushing"?). More to the point: "the law" clearly says that you don't have to pay your loans if you're disabled.
      - ctlby 11y ago
        > This doesn't apply only to expensive universities. In order for a university to saddle students with crushing debt, it must almost certainly be both a.) expensive b.) unhelpful for career prospects. This points to private liberal-arts colleges and for-profit diploma mills (though the latter are a lesser part of the problem; they are cheaper and enroll nearly 40% fewer students [1]). > More to the point: "the law" clearly says that you don't have to pay your loans if you're disabled. I'm not suggesting the law is being violated. What's offensive is that borrowers are being encouraged to default, _regardless of delinquency status_; the majority are current on their loans! The administration is actively seeking to maximize loss to the taxpayer. [1] http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp
hahamrfunnyguy 11y ago
It is crazy. At minimum, student loans ought to be capped at prime + 1%. I don't agree with giving away a completely free higher education, but something like this makes much more sense. Make sure the student has some skin in the game, yet doesn't have an oppressive burden to bear for the next 20-30 years.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  That would make the lender lose money.

jonknee 11y ago

> However, as a professional with student loans, I will be furious until the day I pay off my final loan at the 6.55% I am paying. I could get a car for cheaper. And you should be able to get a car (or house!) for cheaper because those are items that can be sold to cover the outstanding loan balance. Secured credit is always cheaper.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
So should I try and sell my experience in a Shakespeare class on the cheap? My professor was pretty terrible.
joeblossom 11y ago
It'd be one thing if student loans were true unsecured debt but they're not. The government backs most student loans (even private ones) and they are not dismissible through bankruptcy. So, in some ways they're more "secure" than a car/house/etc. https://enlightenme.com/secured-and-unsecured-debt/ https://enlightenme.com/secured-and-unsecured-debt/ (there is a mountain of other resources on student loan debt and how it differs)

ctlby 11y ago

> I am glad this measure exists for the disabled Americans being shaken down Silly hyperbole. They're simply being asked to pay for a product they consumed. > the use of private companies charging usurious rates is simply wrong. Sounds like your complaint is less with "usury" than with private enterprise.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Correct, my discomfort with government functions being farmed out to private corporations which add cost and no value clearly indicates that I am a red-faced Commie.
mywittyname 11y ago
Lending comes with inherent risk: if you lend out money, there's a chance that you'll never get it back. That's part of why interest is paid on debt.
- ctlby 11y ago
  Of course. But in this case, this debt is non-dischargeable, so the lender (the government!) is asserting its right under the law--a law that the student should have been aware of before rushing off to expensive, no-name liberal arts university.
  - sp332 11y ago
    This doesn't apply only to expensive universities. Or no-name universities. Or liberal arts universities. Or universities that people "rushed" to (that's a new one on me - how long does one have to delay their higher education before you deem it "not rushing"?). More to the point: "the law" clearly says that you don't have to pay your loans if you're disabled.
    - ctlby 11y ago
      > This doesn't apply only to expensive universities. In order for a university to saddle students with crushing debt, it must almost certainly be both a.) expensive b.) unhelpful for career prospects. This points to private liberal-arts colleges and for-profit diploma mills (though the latter are a lesser part of the problem; they are cheaper and enroll nearly 40% fewer students [1]). > More to the point: "the law" clearly says that you don't have to pay your loans if you're disabled. I'm not suggesting the law is being violated. What's offensive is that borrowers are being encouraged to default, _regardless of delinquency status_; the majority are current on their loans! The administration is actively seeking to maximize loss to the taxpayer. [1] http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

hahamrfunnyguy 11y ago

It is crazy. At minimum, student loans ought to be capped at prime + 1%. I don't agree with giving away a completely free higher education, but something like this makes much more sense. Make sure the student has some skin in the game, yet doesn't have an oppressive burden to bear for the next 20-30 years.

TheLogothete 11y ago
That would make the lender lose money.