When I was in college I knew alot of adults that borrowed way more then they needed & lived a great life. Bought stuff that them & their kids did not need-I guess they were sick of being poor. I remember thinking at the time this is a really bad idea. We had 3 kids and lived frugally then to pay for my college & later to help the kids.
That was never the case for me, Redfox. When I was in school and getting my loans nothing was dispersed to me for living expenses until all my tuition, fees and room and board were paid in full. All I got was money for books. I never took all the money that was offered to me with my FAN. I had a job the entire time and didn't need all that money and I kind of knew it was going to be a big burden paying it back. When I was in grad school and no longer living in the dorm, the money for living expenses went to my rent. I didn't want to live in my car so it never occurred to me to buy a car with it. Anyway, I didn't get and entire academic career's worth of aid in on check. They stretched it out over the years and semesters.Originally Posted by redfox
Please go back and re-read what onlinemoniker posted originally:
The Student Loan Scam:
"Congress passed legislation in the mid-1990’s that skewed student lending to benefit lenders/educational institutions at the expense of students. •student debt can’t be discharged in bankruptcy
•loan companies/guarantors own collection agencies and can write their own ticket for fees/penalty rates on defaulters—giving them an incentive to allow borrowers to default—lenders will not work with struggling borrowers
•lenders can garnish wages, tax returns, social security, disability
•defaulted loans do NOT qualify for the rare student loan forgiveness programs
•upon consolidation, student loan interest rates may not be renegotiated by borrowers—EVER!
•average national interest rate on outstanding student loans—currently 12%
•student loans are exempt from statutes of limitations for collection, usury laws, Truth in Lending, and Fair Debt and Collections •lenders are also allowed to take up to 25% as collection fees on defaulted loans
•universities often have "preferred-lender" arrangements with the universities and receive kickbacks
•borrowers wanting to consolidate their loans must use the original lender"
It's not students being unable to repay their loans, it's getting into a contract that is far more punitive than any other similar contractual agreement.
One more: Banks' Student Loan Gravy Train:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/...ly-got-halted/
Were they forced to take the loan? Did they not think that they would be required to pay the loan back? Loans are made for the lender to make a profit, or at least keep up with inflation. Most of the rules you seem to be complaining about only effect those who are trying to default on the loans.
I agree that the money was to easy to come by. Without the government agreeing to the above rules many of the loans would not have been made. What do you think the interest rates would be for unsecured loans?
I don't understand why the banks are so worried about making a profit. When they make bad loans en mass they just start screaming for a bailout and then the government and federal reserve happily comply with trillions of dollars.
I don't agree with that either.
I do get tired of the idea that anything is OK since someone else does it.
I don't think it's about ok, I think it's about if the only one "following the rules", either because they have so much of a conscience - and good, but it seems far from the best use of it, or far more likely because the system as such is setup so the rules only apply to them, then that leads to certain structural consequences, a society that is a certain way. I mean the banks can't actually get bailed out and then "move on nothing to see here". Joe Schmoe following all the rules because "anything is not OK just because someone else does it" and because rules are actually enforced on him, banks getting all the money in the world in bailouts forever and ever, will lead to Joe Schmoe bankrupt and on the streets and the banks charging him interest for the sidewalk he sleeps on. That's really not that much of an exaggeration. And in that case who do you think most people would rather be? Joe Schmoe whose rewards are not in this lifetime, or a bankster? You don't even have a cultural structure that values HOW people got their money over merely having it (not this culture!) and the economy certainly doesn't (even if it was literal blood money noone will ask - money itself is a laundering operation, it launders social conscience so it all comes out smelling green, uh I mean clean, in the end).
Trees don't grow on money
DD did not take on college loans until she was in grad school. Even with merit-based scholarships, she still amassed quite a bit of loan debt to get through the two years. This was seven years ago and my recollection was that the media pumped out the message non-stop that college loans were "good" loans and that one couldn't make it in the world without an advanced degree. Now, seven years later, she like so many others moans about her indentured servitude to obtain the education needed to achieve her career goals. Seems to me like a society that really valued educated citizens would make low cost education a top priority. There was a time when education at a state university was ridiculously cheap. I don't know about other state universities but ours is rich beyond belief due to oil, gas and real estate interests yet tuition goes up every year...along with student loan debt.
The government stepped in to make it easy to get school loans. Then due to easy money the colleges did what they could to attract new students, then upped their prices. Not much different than housing.
I paid for both my kids college, they also went about 7 years ago. It was a lot of money, but I don't think two years qualifies for indentured servitude. Still no one forced the students to take out a loan, and I would think that the terms were in the loan documents.
If people quit going to state college's and said the cost were to high, what do you think would happen? I would think they would cut cost and reduce the price of tuition. But student's like the fancy building and continue to pay for them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote