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

[bjsesq]

If this is you, my condolences. Talk about getting DPed by ITE...

Not 100% sure how my parents finances will shake out, but we all know that's going to be a problem for a decent number of people.

bjsesq, did the Senator seem to think on his own that it's going to be retroactive? I wasn't sure if that was something you mentioned to him based on the email hausmaus said. I'm not ready to believe it would be retroactive even with that email from the Dept. of Ed without more people confirming it.

His office wasn't sure. I mentioned the email, and his staffer said that they take issue with retroactively stripping people of money promised to them. Again, I don't know if they were appeasing me or not, so I very likely learned dick I didn't know already.

Gotcha, thanks, bjsesq. At least you were able to get a reaction from someone so you know it wasn't just written down by an aide and forgotten.

I'm glad to hear schools are starting to lobby against it. I'll be calling mine to get them on it. WT, that's crazy. So, your school seems to think it's retroactive then? Or are they just prepping for the possibility?

Everyone is in panic mode. Nobody really knows shit.

[LSL]

Gotcha, thanks, bjsesq. At least you were able to get a reaction from someone so you know it wasn't just written down by an aide and forgotten.

I'm glad to hear schools are starting to lobby against it. I'll be calling mine to get them on it. WT, that's crazy. So, your school seems to think it's retroactive then? Or are they just prepping for the possibility?

Everyone is in panic mode. Nobody really knows shit.

God, seriously, this. I normally try to hold off until I hear something and try to keep the endless speculation down. But, no one knows anything, no one is talking and we could all be really screwed. Just to reiterate, F this all day long, ugh.

[jaydizzle]

This may be true, but we need to act now and voice our concerns. This affects all of us. Please write to your congressman or senator and tell them to ensure this won't be retroactive! Get your schools to put out press releases!

[bjsesq]

Gotcha, thanks, bjsesq. At least you were able to get a reaction from someone so you know it wasn't just written down by an aide and forgotten.

I'm glad to hear schools are starting to lobby against it. I'll be calling mine to get them on it. WT, that's crazy. So, your school seems to think it's retroactive then? Or are they just prepping for the possibility?

Everyone is in panic mode. Nobody really knows shit.

God, seriously, this. I normally try to hold off until I hear something and try to keep the endless speculation down. But, no one knows anything, no one is talking and we could all be really screwed. Just to reiterate, F this all day long, ugh.

To be honest with you, I am not sure the fucking White House even knows. The language on that proposed budget is so god-awful shitty that they may be trying to figure out whether or not they meant some of the shit the public is saying it does. It's just horribly written.

[jaydizzle]

Gotcha, thanks, bjsesq. At least you were able to get a reaction from someone so you know it wasn't just written down by an aide and forgotten.

I'm glad to hear schools are starting to lobby against it. I'll be calling mine to get them on it. WT, that's crazy. So, your school seems to think it's retroactive then? Or are they just prepping for the possibility?

Everyone is in panic mode. Nobody really knows shit.

God, seriously, this. I normally try to hold off until I hear something and try to keep the endless speculation down. But, no one knows anything, no one is talking and we could all be really screwed. Just to reiterate, F this all day long, ugh.

To be honest with you, I am not sure the fucking White House even knows. The language on that proposed budget is so god-awful shitty that they may be trying to figure out whether or not they meant some of the shit the public is saying it does. It's just horribly written.

I agree with you 100%. I think we all need to lobby against this though, so we don't get screwed. Lots of the media seems to like this proposal.

[LSL]

Gotcha, thanks, bjsesq. At least you were able to get a reaction from someone so you know it wasn't just written down by an aide and forgotten.

I'm glad to hear schools are starting to lobby against it. I'll be calling mine to get them on it. WT, that's crazy. So, your school seems to think it's retroactive then? Or are they just prepping for the possibility?

Everyone is in panic mode. Nobody really knows shit.

God, seriously, this. I normally try to hold off until I hear something and try to keep the endless speculation down. But, no one knows anything, no one is talking and we could all be really screwed. Just to reiterate, F this all day long, ugh.

To be honest with you, I am not sure the fucking White House even knows. The language on that proposed budget is so god-awful shitty that they may be trying to figure out whether or not they meant some of the shit the public is saying it does. It's just horribly written.

Word. I would not be surprised in the least to find out they don't know/didn't realize how this language might be interpreted. Would not be surprised either that many in Washington have no idea that a good chunk of their newest staff is relying on PSLF and the particulars of what that entails.

[Dingo Starr]

many in Washington have no idea that a good chunk of their newest staff is relying on PSLF and the particulars of what that entails.

How can we capitalize on this?
Lobbying from the bottom, quiet bjsesq, could be just as effective as from the top. Remove the waitstaff and then the customers have to serve themselves. That prospect could be terrifying and needs to be sold as such.

[Chrysogonus]

So, HLS and YLS LRAPs looking a lot better now, amirite?

[hdunlop]

I really don't know why no one listens when I keep posting that the funding stream in the supplemental tables makes clear that the proposal is retroactive? There's no point in making the change if it's not at least partially retroactive (which is where some sort of compromise is likely to end up) because otherwise it isn't scored as saving any money! This is particularly true since it appears the main reason the President proposed the change is to generate savings then used to expand loans for poorer people.

[LSL]

many in Washington have no idea that a good chunk of their newest staff is relying on PSLF and the particulars of what that entails.

How can we capitalize on this?
Lobbying from the bottom, quiet bjsesq, could be just as effective as from the top. Remove the waitstaff and then the customers have to serve themselves. That prospect could be terrifying and needs to be sold as such.

Yeah, definitely. When people contact their schools, I think they should frame it as, "Look, students might leave your school for a better school or better LRAP program if this goes through." When they contact congress people and other political actors, they should frame it as, "Look, students won't be able to afford to work for you anymore. The huge swell in public sector applicants (quiet bjsesq ) was partially from the economy in 2008, but also because that's when people realized PSLF in its current form was available. If it's gone, many of those people are gone because $57,500 is not enough."

[bjsesq]

Penis.

[Tiago Splitter]

I really don't know why no one listens when I keep posting that the funding stream in the supplemental tables makes clear that the proposal is retroactive? There's no point in making the change if it's not at least partially retroactive (which is where some sort of compromise is likely to end up) because otherwise it isn't scored as saving any money! This is particularly true since it appears the main reason the President proposed the change is to generate savings then used to expand loans for poorer people.

This is one of multiple threads on the topic, and it's 16 pages. No one is glossing over the possibility that this could be retroactive.

[hdunlop]

Sure. They're glossing over the fact that it IS retroactive.

It seems to me that if we all want to be lawyers (and since some of us our lawyers) we should accept the facts of the case and structure the best argument possible going forward, rather than live in denial about what's in the proposal. The wording is pretty clear, the funding stream is very clear, and the DOED person was crystal clear: the proposal is retroactive.

Fortunately, the proposal is also DOA, and so an argument can be made that it's a very bad idea to make it fully retroactive or a million other things.

With that, I'm peacing out of here, it would have done my sanity good to have never begun posting.

[LSL]

Sure. They're glossing over the fact that it IS retroactive.

It seems to me that if we all want to be lawyers (and since some of us our lawyers) we should accept the facts of the case and structure the best argument possible going forward, rather than live in denial about what's in the proposal. The wording is pretty clear, the funding stream is very clear, and the DOED person was crystal clear: the proposal is retroactive.

Fortunately, the proposal is also DOA, and so an argument can be made that it's a very bad idea to make it fully retroactive or a million other things.

With that, I'm peacing out of here, it would have done my sanity good to have never begun posting.

FWIW missy pissy, I looked through some of your previous posts and you might have confused us mere humans down here on earth with this stuff:

Stop. As I said above, the Department of Ed has already clarified through individuals that the proposal is NOT retroactive. Official statements of confirmation are forthcoming.

OK, sorry. I must have missed where you said that above. I look forward to the official word.

Edit to note huge mandatory savings starting in 2017 and ramping up hard on page 18 (Table S-9, "Expand and reform student loan income-based repayment"). I'm truly curious about this.

Glad that's settled. Let's once again focus on how this isn't a serious proposal, it's a budget gimmick to pay for other proposals.

TL,DR: When PSLF was created it was scored by CBO as free because it didn't begin to pay out for ten years, but now that those ten years are approaching, its baseline costs can be capped to create scored savings that can be used to pay for other spending. This budget is going nowhere so who cares, but yes, this is an increasingly lucrative target for budget-cutting types.

[patogordo]

this strikes me as a super retarded way of scoring budgets. so if i include a budget item paying out a trillion dollars in 2025 (more than ten years out, so it apparently costs zero now) and then i cancel it the next year i've "saved" a trillion dollars?

[Big Dog]

this strikes me as a super retarded way of scoring budgets.

That's exactly how ObamaCare was scored.....the up-front taxes were collected for the first four years (for a total of 10 years of revenue), but expenses of the program were only counted for 6 years. Yeah, it's stupid, but that's how Govmint works (for all those Govt LS wannabes).

Would not be surprised either that many in Washington have no idea that a good chunk of their newest staff is relying on PSLF...

The real irony is that the current students supported this Prez 2:1.....

[patogordo]

this strikes me as a super retarded way of scoring budgets.

That's exactly how ObamaCare was scored.....

OH WELL IN THAT CASE IT'S GENIUS POLICY

YOU CAUGHT ME RIGHT IN YOUR WEB

[DebtMuch]

Some MPN's for consolidated direct loans actually do not include "may" in regards to PSLF and actually state that 10 year forgiveness is essentially a right. Makes for a great debate about the terms of a Contract as opposed to being "on" PSLF...

[LSL]

this strikes me as a super retarded way of scoring budgets.

That's exactly how ObamaCare was scored.....the up-front taxes were collected for the first four years (for a total of 10 years of revenue), but expenses of the program were only counted for 6 years. Yeah, it's stupid, but that's how Govmint works (for all those Govt LS wannabes).

Would not be surprised either that many in Washington have no idea that a good chunk of their newest staff is relying on PSLF...

The real irony is that the current students supported this Prez 2:1.....

Yeah, we all probs shoulda actually put our chips on Mitt Romney. He'd have sold a car elevator for us to pay those loans.

[twenty]

Some MPN's for consolidated direct loans actually do not include "may" in regards to PSLF and actually state that 10 year forgiveness is essentially a right. Makes for a great debate about the terms of a Contract as opposed to being "on" PSLF...

Curious to hear more thoughts on this.

[savepslf]

Created an account just for this. Didn't read ALL 16 pages so sorry if it's already been posted, but here's a link to a petition:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... t/wkqnqBCH

[patogordo]

someone quoted their MPN and all it said was "a PSLF program is available for forgiveness of loans after ten years of public service work" or something along those lines. didn't sound like a promise to forgive debt after ten years to me.

[worldtraveler]

I am by no means a contracts expert, but could there be an argument that by accepting the terms of PSLF and only making PAYE/IBR payments on the understanding of forgiveness, it obligates to government to specific performance or remedy of the contract? If this program wasn't offered you might have made higher payments to pay the balance off sooner or saved on interests. Basically you accepted a contract offer and revoking it is to your detriment so the gov needs to pay up?

Seriously I barely remember anything regarding contracts though so I might just be making stuff up.

[patogordo]

yea an implied contract based on detrimental reliance. but that's an equitable remedy that's much harder to win than a breach of an explicit promise.

[jaydizzle]

The situation just got more grim: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedf ... 022614.pdf

Section 1207 seems to point to any loan forgiveness we do get being treatable as taxable income. Yay! Let's keep kicking us down.

How about we get rid of social security? I'm sick of a generation of older people telling us how easy we have it despite kicking us while we are down in every way imaginable.