Umberto Calvini:
"The government bankers want to control the debt,
And whoever controls the debt, controls everything.
This is the essence of the banking industry,
to make us all slaves to debt."
Posted on 09/14/2012 9:28:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So what. The Federal debt has enslaved us all.
Good. Let them move back in with Mom and Dad so they can afford to pay off their debt.
I agree.
I have to wonder how many of these students worked, while going to school and doubling up on the jobs during the summer?
I doubt the ones, with really high debts, did much to minimize their debt situation.
the MSM continues to prepare the ground for Obama to announce a Student Loan Forgiveness scheme before the election
Borrowers and lenders sometimes make mistakes. When other sorts of debt are taken on, a borrower risks default and a loss of credit and the lender risks losing money. Both are unhappy with a default but at least they can move on.
But with student loans, a mistaken decision to take on debt by the borrower in youth means the borrower becomes an indentured servant to the lender. There is no way to move past the mistake. The government will hound the borrower for the rest of his life until the debt is paid. There is no bankruptcy. A criminal stealing $25,000 and blowing it on booze and hookers is more likely to escape the obligation to pay back the $25,000 than is a student that made the mistake of borrowing the same.
Students shouldn't be financially punished to the same extent criminals are punished. It doesn't make sense.
“Many young people view college as a “five year party”
For American kids, college is all part of the prolonged incubation period they go through. They don’t want to grow up. Their parents sponsor the idiocy but want the rest of us to pay for the party.
It’s a reall dumb process and I am sure they’d be better off if they grew up after HS. They need to take some responsiblilty for themselves much sooner.
Some of them NEVER DO!
Without those repayment terms nobody would have voluntarily made those loans to what were bad risks.
To after the fact take away those terms would be a criminal redistribution of wealth to those who by all means ought to be able to repay—if only they’d make the work and lifestyle choices to do so. Often, their parents could have paid anyway, but chose not to because of the loans—which were made at very low rates anyway.
Obama already has a program by which students can ditch their debt by keeping a low-paying job and paying pennies on what they owe. That is already grossly unfair and distortive of the market.
I worked while in school and I still needed a loan.
Here's the trouble: when some students borrow money for school, that increases demand for education services. The institutions see the increased demand and raise prices. This price increase prices non-borrowers out of the market for an education. Those student then must get their own loans so that they can purchase the educations services they lost to other borrowers.
The "winners" of an education, then, are those that borrow the most money.
It's insidious. Of course those in the education industry love it. The students borrow that money and those in the education industry get to spend it.
The important question is, was the 4 years of beer and sex worth it?
Just ask Ward Churchill, Bill Ayers, Skip Gates, and Elizabeth Warren. Throw in Obama's cabinet secretaries and unconstitutional "czars" as well.
-PJ
Absolutely! And that would have been a good thing! Those repayment terms have created a perverse situation.
To after the fact take away those terms would be a criminal redistribution of wealth
And what form does that wealth take? It's the borrowers themselves that are the wealth. The government has promised the future product of these borrowers to the lenders and these borrowers have no escape. Borrowers have essentially sold themselves into slavery. If there is any redistribution of wealth, it takes the form of the borrower being given back his own body.
They knew they were going to have to pay it back, they just didn’t know the timing of their income. Going 20 or 30 grand in debt to be on a career path with a median income of 70 or 80 a year sounds like OK math, until you get out into the job market and learn you don’t get to median income until you have 10 years of experience at least, which is about the time your loan is scheduled to be paid off, meanwhile they’re lucky to pull down 30 and suddenly they get a $500 a month student loan bill. We’d do the students a favor if in the booklet about majors we’d stop listing median income and swap it for entry, it would also help to put in the booklet what percentage with that major actually get work in that field. 18 year olds have enough of a tendency to make bad decisions already, giving them bad information doesn’t help them any.
When you apply for financial aid, they first ask you every possible question about your finances. Then they calculate what your annual family contribution should be. They subtract that from the total cost of the first year.
Then they tell you how much you will get in aid, and how much you will have to borrow.
I don’t know when they started doing this. They in effect make it a given that you will have to borrow. Most people don’t stop to think about it.
They're not dumb. They're just inexperienced. How can you have lived so long and not understand the difference between intelligence and wisdom?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.