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

[swampman]

Looks like as long as you borrowed your first law school loan before July 1, 2015 then all your LS loans are covered.

Why would that just be law school, though? Wouldn't it be ANY federal direct loan? Like if you had undergrad stafford loans prior to July 1st, 2015, it seems like it would count because you wouldn't be a new borrower.

The problem is they don't actually refer to "new borrowers." Instead they specify that if your first loan is taken out before July 1st, 2015 then any federal loans from that "course of study" will be eligible for the old PSLF/PAYE. Law school and undergrad are almost definitely separate courses of study.

So if you start law school after July 2015 then your undergrad loans would be eligible, but your law school loans would not. Law Class of 2017 should still have both undergrad and law loans eligible.

[cinephile]

^ gotcha. That helps my understanding of this.

[SemperLegal]

So, whats the word? Am I filing joint or separately?

[Tanicius]

So, whats the word? Am I filing joint or separately?

Like, next year? You realize none of these proposals are law yet, so you're fine doing whatever you were gonna do.

[hdunlop]

I'm checking back in to share my relief that this has ended up with ED deciding that current borrowers would be grandfathered in. That is, obviously, outstanding news.

I still haven't been able to get a program-by-program breakout of the funding stream and continue to believe the original proposal would *not* have been retroactive, which is why the first feedback from ED was that it wouldn't be. Of course, there's a chance I was wrong the entire time, but I just don't see how these other changes save the massive amounts of money on the timeline the budget shows. Perhaps some of the savings come from the idea that some students will switch over, thus getting their loans capped.

If Educated Risk is correctly quoting ED, though, it means this freakout was almost certainly *not* for nothing. This was a political document, so once heat for a certain proposal becomes greater than the benefits, it makes sense to switch things around. I doubt they even submit draft language to the Hill for this, so they'll never actually have it rescored and have the discrepancy found. But that doesn't matter. What matters is they floated a trial balloon, students flipped shit, and they abandoned it. Democracy in action.

[linkx13]

Thought people might be interested in this:

--LinkRemoved--

Saturday, Warren again displayed her willingness to be a fly in the Democratic ointment, denouncing a provision in the White House’s proposed 2015 budget that would cap forgiveness of federal loans for college students who go on to work in the public sector. Currently, graduates who work full time in public service can have the remainder of their federal loans forgiven after making 120 monthly payments, which usually takes 10 years.

“I’m not a fan of capping,” Warren said in response to a question from an audience member, repeating a proposal she made last year to forgive a portion of a graduate’s loans for each year the graduate spends working in public service. “We should be encouraging every young person to spend some time in public service.”

But, Warren said, fighting the White House on the measure is “not the number one, first thing we’re going to work on.”

President Obama’s administration has argued the cap is needed to prevent colleges from raising tuition, since students who plan public service careers are content to take on more debt, knowing they will never be required to repay the full amount.

[twenty]

a proposal she made last year to forgive a portion of a graduate’s loans for each year the graduate spends working in public service.

This, however, would be legendary.

[Rahviveh]

Thought people might be interested in this:

--LinkRemoved--

Saturday, Warren again displayed her willingness to be a fly in the Democratic ointment, denouncing a provision in the White House’s proposed 2015 budget that would cap forgiveness of federal loans for college students who go on to work in the public sector. Currently, graduates who work full time in public service can have the remainder of their federal loans forgiven after making 120 monthly payments, which usually takes 10 years.

“I’m not a fan of capping,” Warren said in response to a question from an audience member, repeating a proposal she made last year to forgive a portion of a graduate’s loans for each year the graduate spends working in public service. “We should be encouraging every young person to spend some time in public service.”

But, Warren said, fighting the White House on the measure is “not the number one, first thing we’re going to work on.”

President Obama’s administration has argued the cap is needed to prevent colleges from raising tuition, since students who plan public service careers are content to take on more debt, knowing they will never be required to repay the full amount.

ROFL. The irony is that she was speaking at Suffolk University school of law, which costs $255,000 at sticker.

[LSL]

President Obama’s administration has argued the cap is needed to prevent colleges from raising tuition, since students who plan public service careers are content to take on more debt, knowing they will never be required to repay the full amount.

"Pay no attention to instead further regulating the greedy maniac, I mean upstanding school, behind the curtain."

[The Dark Shepard]

And this is why President Obama is a bought-out conservative.

[cinephile]

I'd be okay with this if the cap is only applying to undergraduate debt because that's the maximum amount an undergrad can take out in stafford loans anyway. If only they would limit it in that manner. And eliminate interest entirely so those undergrads wouldn't have far more than 57k by the time forgiveness rolled around.

[dreamofNYC]

I'm checking back in to share my relief that this has ended up with ED deciding that current borrowers would be grandfathered in. That is, obviously, outstanding news.

I still haven't been able to get a program-by-program breakout of the funding stream and continue to believe the original proposal would *not* have been retroactive, which is why the first feedback from ED was that it wouldn't be. Of course, there's a chance I was wrong the entire time, but I just don't see how these other changes save the massive amounts of money on the timeline the budget shows. Perhaps some of the savings come from the idea that some students will switch over, thus getting their loans capped.

If Educated Risk is correctly quoting ED, though, it means this freakout was almost certainly *not* for nothing. This was a political document, so once heat for a certain proposal becomes greater than the benefits, it makes sense to switch things around. I doubt they even submit draft language to the Hill for this, so they'll never actually have it rescored and have the discrepancy found. But that doesn't matter. What matters is they floated a trial balloon, students flipped shit, and they abandoned it. Democracy in action.

Is this for sure? The grandfather clause? I am interested in attending Fordham in Fall 2014, specializing in immigration law. Would the cap apply to me, or to those who enroll and borrow in fall 2015? Thanks!

[Tanicius]

You guys, there is no requirement for a grandfather clause in the law. The default position of the proposal was that all previous loans had their own conditions. It remains that way until an anti-grandfather clause is written into law.

[Nomo]

You guys, there is no requirement for a grandfather clause in the law. The default position of the proposal was that all previous loans had their own conditions. It remains that way until an anti-grandfather clause is written into law.

Nobody has even written a law, but generally I am in agreement.

People who think we are out of the woods here are more than a tad bit overly optimistic.

We have no clue what's going to happen, but we do know that there is a lobby (apparently with some influence) that wants a cap. I feel very uneasy. I will continue to feel uneasy until my loans are forgiven.

[Tanicius]

You guys, there is no requirement for a grandfather clause in the law. The default position of the proposal was that all previous loans had their own conditions. It remains that way until an anti-grandfather clause is written into law.

Nobody has even written a law, but generally I am in agreement.

People who think we are out of the woods here are more than a tad bit overly optimistic.

We have no clue what's going to happen, but we do know that there is a lobby (apparently with some influence) that wants a cap. I feel very uneasy. I will continue to feel uneasy until my loans are forgiven.

What I'm saying is, they could write any kind of law, and just because it doesn't have a grandfather clause doesn't mean we're boned. They have to explicitly write an anti-grandfather clause. Everyone freaking out about a proposal that didn't include this superfluous protective "grandfather clause" is panicking over nothing.

[hdunlop]

I'm not sure that's true. The notes I saw said may be eligible, not are guaranteed federal money. Anyway, if the program changes, it changes; the details of the grandfather being written in or out aren't likely to be impacted by inertia, and I don't think you can sue the feds for breach.

[worldtraveler]

I feel like Warren 2016 is our best plan.

[The Dark Shepard]

I feel like Warren 2016 is our best plan.

It's going to be Hilary. Which means we are screwed

[Tanicius]

I feel like Warren 2016 is our best plan.

It's going to be Hilary. Which means we are screwed

[Kronk]

Can someone tl;dr me on whether or not I should commit suicide and what is going on here?

[Cal Trask]

Can someone tl;dr me on whether or not I should commit suicide and what is going on here?

you're good for now, brother.

[Kronk]

Can someone tl;dr me on whether or not I should commit suicide and what is going on here?

you're good for now, brother.

Phew.

[Nomo]

There's a new thread on this article, but I thought I should add it here. I'm feeling worse and worse about the future of IBR/PAYE/PSLF, especially after looking at the comments. Most people have no sympathy for us and think we should pay back what we borrowed without any government programs. I'm still very worried about retroactive changes.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-p ... 00861.html

[cinephile]

.

[InTheHouse]

There's a new thread on this article, but I thought I should add it here. I'm feeling worse and worse about the future of IBR/PAYE/PSLF, especially after looking at the comments. Most people have no sympathy for us and think we should pay back what we borrowed without any government programs. I'm still very worried about retroactive changes.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-p ... 00861.html

Oh relax. There won't be retroactive changes. School tuition was priced under the assumption that loan forgiveness programs would available to law graduates. Making these changes retroactive would be manifestly unfair. They want to bring down costs, not screw a specific set of graduates.