PSLF revisions: New budget proposal screws anyone in PI. Forum

[LSL]

Sounds great for some people, not so much for the millions of students out there who can't get PI/gov work. They get left holding the bag.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. That as taxpayers they would be left holding the bag? Their payment through taxes is a negligible (though not unimportant) burden compared to the mountains of debt non-profit and gov't workers would pay individually. They already will be holding the bag because schools (regardless of PSLF) have no reason to not jack up the cost of tuition infinitely (the actors the gov't should be regulating here).

Students who have inflated tuition due to both programs, but don't qualify for PSLF.

Also, debt payments are an ever-increasing part of the budget, meaning every single federal agency has to make cuts since the US government essentially wrote a blank check with a limit of $1,164,550,548,908 (source: FinAid.org)

I'm assuming this is the amount of student debt total. If so, blank check isn't an exact analogy since they get some of it back. Either way, I think we're in agreement that the greatest problem is the gov't allowing schools to charge whatever they want and suck up gov't money because they have no reason to care how it affects student debt loads. I mean, I suppose having to pay through their LRAP program counts as something, but they can make those as good or bad as they want in the end.

[SemperLegal]

Sounds great for some people, not so much for the millions of students out there who can't get PI/gov work. They get left holding the bag.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. That as taxpayers they would be left holding the bag? Their payment through taxes is a negligible (though not unimportant) burden compared to the mountains of debt non-profit and gov't workers would pay individually. They already will be holding the bag because schools (regardless of PSLF) have no reason to not jack up the cost of tuition infinitely (the actors the gov't should be regulating here).

Students who have inflated tuition due to both programs, but don't qualify for PSLF.

Also, debt payments are an ever-increasing part of the budget, meaning every single federal agency has to make cuts since the US government essentially wrote a blank check with a limit of $1,164,550,548,908 (source: FinAid.org)

I'm assuming this is the amount of student debt total. If so, blank check isn't an exact analogy since they get some of it back. Either way, I think we're in agreement that the greatest problem is the gov't allowing schools to charge whatever they want and suck up gov't money because they have no reason to care how it affects student debt loads. I mean, I suppose having to pay through their LRAP program counts as something, but they can make those as good or bad as they want in the end.

I think we agree as well, I'm just believe that in general progressives should be less cowardly and say what they want, income redistribution and a higher safety net. When you (we?) coach it in language other than that, or try to disguise its mechanism, you sacrifice a lot of the good for political expediency.

PSLF is an attempt to increase pay/funding to PI and government, as well as to shift costs from firm-bound students to PI students. However, rather than do it outright and debate it out in the open, they punted 10 years down the road. The results are much less good then a grant/redistribution would have done, with much more negative collateral effects

[Nomo]

Wouldn't the sensible solution have been to simply refuse to give federal student loans to schools with high tuition.

I don't see any good reason to fix this on the back-end, rather than the front-end.

[MKC]

I know I've posted my solution to the tuition/TTT problem on TLS before, but it seems particularly relevant in this context.

1) Get rid of Federal Student Loans.
2) Make the school the direct originator and servicer of student loans for their institution.
3) Redirect the federal loan money that was going to students to the institutions.
4) Allow student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

As a university, if your students can't pay off their loans, then you can't service your debt to the federal government, and you go bankrupt. Line up the incentives, and this problem will fix itself.

[LSL]

All I know: I took on 200k with this program in mind as a safety valve. I need it now, and I qualify for it. I don't give a fuck what it means for America. Suck my fucking poor dick with your legislative considerations.

Where I'm at ultimately. I think the part in why this sentiment should not be seen as boomerish is that it is inherently fucked up to strap the amounts of debt onto young people that we do in this country. It's not the same as griping that medicare doesn't cover every single medical need imaginable. We're talking tuition and estimated COL. You tell me now I can't get the program I relied on for NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same level of relief in our peer countries because you can't fix the fucking system that's been broken forever and haha cuz it's easy to shit on unorganized students? Fuck you and your fucking bullshit, I will eat your fucking face.

That's a huge jump in logic. Its one thing to say the government should pay for higher education, its another to say that the government should pay for your rent, food, clothes, etc. to an unregulated extent. If we really carried about being fair and not continuing an unfair system, why not just require law students to use TANF and section 8. Why do students get to go to the front of the line?

Definitely not what I meant. My entire sentiment is that the cost should be regulated better (mostly on the tuition end). The COL is estimated into loans too and granted, we get to accept less than we're offered, but sometimes that's difficult. That's at least be in our control. The tuition increases on end are comparatively the major problems. As far as subsidizing COL for students though, again, that's not really as controversial or bad idea as you might think. I know other countries do it (to a certain extent). Sure, their national debt is higher. But their young people are strapped down with individualized debt they struggle to pay off. I'd make that trade-off in a freaking second.

And, LOL Dingo Starr, yeah I get all my ranting out on TLS.

[Dingo Starr]

Its one thing to say the government should pay for higher education, its another to say that the government should pay for your rent, food, clothes, etc. to an unregulated extent.

We really shouldn't be looking at this as an individual, or even class, entitlement.
What it is, at least for the PI folks, is a legislative funding end-run.
PD and DA offices are incredibly poorly funded, considering what the federal government is asking for them to do effectively.
PSLF bypasses the political miasma of whether criminal justice (of this sort) needs more federal funding and shoves more willing applicants down the pipeline.
Yes, it directly subsidizes those applicants. It also indirectly (and hopefully to greater effect) subsidizes PI work of all kinds.
The "how" is less important than the "why" IMO.

edit: scooped a little but the point stands.

[Tiago Splitter]

Wouldn't the sensible solution have been to simply refuse to give federal student loans to schools with high tuition.

I don't see any good reason to fix this on the back-end, rather than the front-end.

If you limit federal student loans in any way you'll be labeled a racist who hates the poor. Not a good look.

[LSL]

I'm assuming this is the amount of student debt total. If so, blank check isn't an exact analogy since they get some of it back. Either way, I think we're in agreement that the greatest problem is the gov't allowing schools to charge whatever they want and suck up gov't money because they have no reason to care how it affects student debt loads. I mean, I suppose having to pay through their LRAP program counts as something, but they can make those as good or bad as they want in the end.

I think we agree as well, I'm just believe that in general progressives should be less cowardly and say what they want, income redistribution and a higher safety net. When you (we?) coach it in language other than that, or try to disguise its mechanism, you sacrifice a lot of the good for political expediency.

PSLF is an attempt to increase pay/funding to PI and government, as well as to shift costs from firm-bound students to PI students. However, rather than do it outright and debate it out in the open, they punted 10 years down the road. The results are much less good then a grant/redistribution would have done, with much more negative collateral effects

Couldn't agree more. And yeah, Dems don'g get the spineless reputation for nothing.

[Tanicius]

This blog post by Heather Jarvis seems promising that the language is NOT retroactive. She also states in the comments that there is precedent on related issues concerning whether the government would apply this retroactively.

http://askheatherjarvis.com/blog/presid ... -borrowers

[Dingo Starr]

If you limit federal student loans in any way you'll be labeled a racist who hates the poor. Not a good look.

HEADLINE:
Obama's a Racist who Hates the Poor!
Republicans are going to love that shit. I'm calling Karl Rove right now!

[Cal Trask]

This blog post by Heather Jarvis seems promising that the language is NOT retroactive. She also states in the comments that there is precedent on related issues concerning whether the government would apply this retroactively.

http://askheatherjarvis.com/blog/presid ... -borrowers

I don't know who she is but I like that she makes me less panicky.

[04102014]

Wouldn't the sensible solution have been to simply refuse to give federal student loans to schools with high tuition.

I don't see any good reason to fix this on the back-end, rather than the front-end.

If you limit federal student loans in any way you'll be labeled a racist who hates the poor. Not a good look.

So much truth in so few words.

[patogordo]

just look at that EXPLOSION in law school tuition after 2007

[worldtraveler]

Does anybody have Elizabeth Warren or Tom Harkin as their senators? They would be the most likely to point out the problems in this proposal.

[SemperLegal]

just look at that EXPLOSION in law school tuition after 2007

Yet, there is an ongoing, drastic tuition rise even after the market totally exploded. Perhaps a huge reason that so many people were so eager to go to lowly-ranked schools with dismal employment prospects (and the same tuition rates) is market distortion from the effect of paying for school with Monopoly money.

[patogordo]

wut. tuition always increases over time, since beginning of civilization. rate of tuition increase has declined since 2007. how do you square that with "PAYE/PSLF are sending grad school tuition to the moon"

[twenty]

Honestly, I more or less agree with Heather Jarvis. Pulling the rug out from underneath tens of thousands of law/med students on a PSLF track is pretty unprecedentedly stupid, and I really can't help but think that PSLF in its current form will be available to students with loans prior to July 2015.

If that's what ended up happening, I'd actually feel slightly more secure in PSLF/PAYE than I did before, since the whole problem of those damn kids racking up debt on the backs of those poor hard-working baby boomers would have been addressed at that point.

Like, it would suck for anyone interested in PI after class of 2018 rolls through, but hey, at least that doesn't screw the people already on PSLF.

[SemperLegal]

wut. tuition always increases over time, since beginning of civilization. rate of tuition increase has declined since 2007. how do you square that with "PAYE/PSLF are sending grad school tuition to the moon"

Not a stats major, but I've been playing around with the College board numbers for overall tuition costs per year, and there was a clear spike in the rate of increase in 2008. Some of this might have been the crisis increasing the demand for the safety of school, but I wouldn't dismiss the effect of PAYE, IBR, and PSLF soley on the basis of gut feelings that there should have been a bigger spike.

[anyriotgirl]

Honestly, I more or less agree with Heather Jarvis. Pulling the rug out from underneath tens of thousands of law/med students on a PSLF track is pretty unprecedentedly stupid, and I really can't help but think that PSLF in its current form will be available to students with loans prior to July 2015.

If that's what ended up happening, I'd actually feel slightly more secure in PSLF/PAYE than I did before, since the whole problem of those damn kids racking up debt on the backs of those poor hard-working baby boomers would have been addressed at that point.

Like, it would suck for anyone interested in PI after class of 2018 rolls through, but hey, at least that doesn't screw the people already on PSLF.

Do we think this will include loans from undergrad?

[patogordo]

according to that forbes article from a while ago in the thread, only 630k borrowers have used IBR/PAYE as of this year. i just don't think the data bears out the costs people are assuming ITT. the vast majority of borrowers either repay their loans without assistance or default. that's why IBR was created in the first place. i mean i'm sympathetic to the incentives argument and i think the Georgetown example shows that law schools are using these programs to try to maintain enrollment when maybe they should be lowering tuition but i'm just not buying that loan repayment programs are some lodestone dragging the US into default.

[bjsesq]

For the love of god, just pay your bills deadbeats. There's really good justification for this change: --LinkRemoved-- ... r-ed-lobby

Don't be a pussy, poster named KirkwoodGAO. Stick to your fucking guns.

[worldtraveler]

according to that forbes article from a while ago in the thread, only 630k borrowers have used IBR/PAYE as of this year. i just don't think the data bears out the costs people are assuming ITT. the vast majority of borrowers either repay their loans without assistance or default. that's why IBR was created in the first place. i mean i'm sympathetic to the incentives argument and i think the Georgetown example shows that law schools are using these programs to try to maintain enrollment when maybe they should be lowering tuition but i'm just not buying that loan repayment programs are some lodestone dragging the US into default.

The bigger problem is that students from for-profit schools have huge default rates and can't pay their loans. What they really need to do is stop giving federal money to go to the University of Phoenix.

[twenty]

Honestly, I more or less agree with Heather Jarvis. Pulling the rug out from underneath tens of thousands of law/med students on a PSLF track is pretty unprecedentedly stupid, and I really can't help but think that PSLF in its current form will be available to students with loans prior to July 2015.

If that's what ended up happening, I'd actually feel slightly more secure in PSLF/PAYE than I did before, since the whole problem of those damn kids racking up debt on the backs of those poor hard-working baby boomers would have been addressed at that point.

Like, it would suck for anyone interested in PI after class of 2018 rolls through, but hey, at least that doesn't screw the people already on PSLF.

Do we think this will include loans from undergrad?

I can't imagine it wouldn't. The same logic that kept pre-October-2007 borrowers from entering PAYE should also keep pre-2015 borrowers in PSLF/old-PAYE.

[cron1834]

Honestly, I more or less agree with Heather Jarvis. Pulling the rug out from underneath tens of thousands of law/med students on a PSLF track is pretty unprecedentedly stupid, and I really can't help but think that PSLF in its current form will be available to students with loans prior to July 2015.

If that's what ended up happening, I'd actually feel slightly more secure in PSLF/PAYE than I did before, since the whole problem of those damn kids racking up debt on the backs of those poor hard-working baby boomers would have been addressed at that point.

Like, it would suck for anyone interested in PI after class of 2018 rolls through, but hey, at least that doesn't screw the people already on PSLF.

I tend to agree with this as well. Some folks are more than halfway through their 120 payments! It would be unprecedented to retroactively screw them over. Frankly, I doubt any changes will impact those matriculating this Fall. It's likely CO '18 that will guinea-pig.

[patogordo]

according to that forbes article from a while ago in the thread, only 630k borrowers have used IBR/PAYE as of this year. i just don't think the data bears out the costs people are assuming ITT. the vast majority of borrowers either repay their loans without assistance or default. that's why IBR was created in the first place. i mean i'm sympathetic to the incentives argument and i think the Georgetown example shows that law schools are using these programs to try to maintain enrollment when maybe they should be lowering tuition but i'm just not buying that loan repayment programs are some lodestone dragging the US into default.

The bigger problem is that students from for-profit schools have huge default rates and can't pay their loans. What they really need to do is stop giving federal money to go to the University of Phoenix.

exactly. the whole point of IBR was to prevent defaults. it doesn't appear to be doing a great job for whatever reason (probably because the whole system is confusing as fuck for the average grad) but that's a different issue