Remember That Old College Loan.
byron davis
to college and hopefully get a degree,degree or no degree you will
someday be in a position to pay it back.
The reality is that you get out in real world and have needs
,shelter,rent or a mortgage, utillity bills, most likely a car
payment.In some areas of the US this could be substantial.
I live in Lincoln Ne ,Mortgage is $640 mo.
car payment /insurance 350. month.mutual fund $300 a mo.daycare for
4month old daughter 125 a week.I owe about 5k in loans. I clear about
$2,200 a month as an Army instructor.I pay on my loans 90% of the time
but sometimes emergencies pop up.I had to replace furnace this winter.
2k.Both my wife and my grandmothers died in the same month.
Had to attend 2 out of state funerals ,$ 1000.there.I got behind in my
student loan payments about 2 months.
I called Student loan co ,its in Abnerdeen SD.A representitive told me I
should pay my 200 a month payment or they would default and report to
credit co.
I told him that if they hope to get paid I need time to get on my feet,
if it goes to a collection co I will never pay.
I had an old NDSL loan that was in collections that I refused to pay
because they would not accept what I felt I could pay.
This seemed to have a sobering effect on them as they realized that I
the debter am in charge and in control.
More college loan debters need to realize that they are in control, not
the loan companies.Collection agencies even make good honest people even
more reluctent to pay,and after while they just give up. I will pay on
my Loan and burn the prommisary note in about 4 years.
The $500 NDSL that is in collections I will never pay on because I
refuse to deal with rude collection agencies.
This post will probably piss some people off but Im just stating
reality.
Why cant the student loan companies be accountable for their actions as
well.
Home and car loans seem to apply payment properly with no hassle.
For what its worth bills for most people must be prioritized.I like many
put my student loans as my last priority.
I pay myself first, mutual fund, then mortgage, car,food utilities then
student loan.If its a tight month and I have to budget student loan gets
paid last if at all
I realize that bill collectors must exist in this society but I often
wonder what happens when bill collectors themselves owe money....End of
rant
Ray keep up the great posts and replies,
I tell everyone I know about this group
Debters realize your not alone. millions owe student loans .Some can pay
and will
some can pay and wont,and some just cant pay.College enrollment would
drop by the millions if not for loans but there will always be risks for
lender and debter.
I pay my loans as long as they are not in collections.Remember that you
the debter are in control always,and pay yourself first always,Never
shortchange your retirement because of student loan debt.
They will never admit it but when you die they get paid in full any
way.Sorry about extra rant
Byron
http://community.webtv.net/lincbc/wwwlincbccom
john...@my-deja.com
Byron, oh Byron, how many times have I heard this same story. You chose
to live in Nebraska, you chose to get married, have kids, etc. You
have choices my friend. Currently federal (stafford) student loans do
not default until 270 days after being delinquent. In the meantime,
you have 3-5 years of forbearance available from the lender, a 6 month
grace period, unemploymnet deferments available, economic hardship
depending on your loan disbursement period, income sensitive repayment
plans, etc. You say you refuse to deal with rude collection people.
Perhaps if you didn't let your loan get as delinquent as it did you
would not encounter such rudeness.
Currently, federal guaranteed student loans do not default as mentioned
previously until 9 months from delinquency. Once this happens, the
guaranty agency will work the account for up to 4 months. Then and only
then does it get assigned to a collection agency. Now are you telling
me with all this time available to you the loan still defaulted? Give
me a break.
Jon
P.S. I have been on both sides as I am currently paying back my loans.
So i am not a person without a conscience as Mr. Woodcock would
like you to think.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ray Woodcock
> Both my wife and my grandmothers died in the same month.
> Had to attend 2 out of state funerals ,$ 1000.there.I got behind in my
> student loan payments about 2 months.
> I called Student loan co ,its in Abnerdeen SD.A representitive told
me I
> should pay my 200 a month payment or they would default and report to
> credit co.
See my other posting, today, on this problem of the present system,
where it's pretty much like-it-or-lump-it for the struggling student
borrower.
> I told him that if they hope to get paid I need time to get on my
feet,
> if it goes to a collection co I will never pay.
> I had an old NDSL loan that was in collections that I refused to pay
> because they would not accept what I felt I could pay.
Yeah, once you reach the point of realizing that they are not
reasonable and they're going to blacklist you anyway, it kind of kills
your motivation to keep them happy.
> This seemed to have a sobering effect on them as they realized that I
> the debter am in charge and in control.
> More college loan debters need to realize that they are in control,
not
> the loan companies.
You're in control in the sense that you can win a scorched-earth
campaign against them, if it comes to that. The borrower has a lot to
lose -- credit rating, perhaps wage garnishment, perhaps a hit to one's
self-respect, etc.
The striking thing is that so many borrowers are feeling such extreme
resentment against the collectors that they would rather lose all that
than knuckle under to injustice and extortion. There are some
profoundly alienated people in the student loan pool. I'm not sure
it's such a brilliant idea to treat them like public enemies.
> Collection agencies even make good honest people even
> more reluctent to pay
I wonder if any studies have been done of the extent to which
resentment contributes to the student loan default problem. When you
have billions of dollars in outstanding loans, and stories of people
laughing at the loan collectors, you (hopefully) wonder whether the
loan collectors provoked that attitude. Stories told in this newsgroup
certainly suggest that possibility in at least some cases.
> The $500 NDSL that is in collections I will never pay on because I
> refuse to deal with rude collection agencies.
> I pay myself first, mutual fund, then mortgage, car,food utilities
then
> student loan.
It would be interesting to compare notes with student borrowers who
owed their debts directly to teachers who helped them become
successful. I just don't think we'd see this resentment, frustration,
bad paperwork, bureaucratic oppression, and all the other baggage of
the present system.
Incidentally, Byron, thanks for the kind remarks.
> I pay my loans as long as they are not in collections.Remember that
you
> the debter are in control always,and pay yourself first always,Never
> shortchange your retirement because of student loan debt.
OK. Now I see what you mean by paying yourself first. I guess that's
another part of the Reagan message that we are still digesting: there
may not be any public assistance program when you retire, so you've got
to look out for yourself.
I think this is really inferior to a situation in which you're
encouraged to think about the public welfare. Then again, as a retired
man in a tiny room without enough to eat, 30 years from now, you might
look back and feel silly for caring about the public when the public --
and particularly the student loan program -- didn't care about you.
I'm not sure that's the end of the discussion on that point; I'm just
saying that I understand that perspective.
> They will never admit it but when you die they get paid in full any
> way.
In my case they got paid in full after I filed bankruptcy. I'm not
sure exactly when, but they seem to have timed it so that they wouldn't
have any relevant papers until shortly before trial. Thus, they could
respond to my pretrial requests for information by saying that they
didn't know and didn't have any documents. Then they got the documents
the day after they replied to my requests.
The law required them to update their essentially false replies, but
they didn't bother. I pointed it out to the judge, but she couldn't
have cared less. Anyone who thinks that student loan guarantors are
noble has never litigated against NYSHESC.
Kevin
byron davis wrote:
>
> The $500 NDSL that is in collections I will never pay on because I
> refuse to deal with rude collection agencies.
Huh? You didn't seem to think they were too rude when
you BORROWED that $500. That's THEIR money, Byron, why
should they be polite? You agreed to pay it back by a
certain date, and didn't.
And they DO have ways of getting it back, if they really
wanted to be bastards. They can garner your paycheck or
intercept any government grants/income tax refunds that
ever come your way.
> This post will probably piss some people off but Im just stating
> reality.
Byron, the reality is that we are all the masters of our
own destinies. We all have choices to make. If someone
chooses to get a BA in art history then whines about how
they can't afford to pay back their $15,000, am I supposed
to feel sympathy for this person? Should I help them pay
back their loan for them? Should the government force me
to? This is what happens when people declare bankruptcy.
> Why cant the student loan companies be accountable for their actions as
> well.
They are. When they let people like you go, all that does
is drive up their costs, makes them more cynical to the
students, and increases the interest rates for other
students that really need that money.
It's $500, Byron. I believe you can afford to pay that
back. I believe you are refusing to, out of spite. I
don't think that is a good reason.
If you can afford this Internet access, then you can afford
to pay back your $500 debt.
> Home and car loans seem to apply payment properly with no hassle.
> For what its worth bills for most people must be prioritized.I like many
> put my student loans as my last priority.
Why do you have to prioritize your bills? You shouldn't have to
say "I'll pay this first, this second, and if there's anything
left, I'll pay this one." Why? Why not just say "Oh, a bill is
here, I think I shall pay it." Why don't you have the money to
pay ALL your bills EVERY time? Why are you living paycheck to
paycheck? You don't prioritize your bills, you just pay them.
That's how life is supposed to work. If you receive a good/
service, you pay for it.
How would you like it if your boss prioritized employees? Paying
directors first, then managers, then if there's any money left,
they pay you? Get the idea?
> I pay myself first, mutual fund, then mortgage, car,food utilities then
> student loan.If its a tight month and I have to budget student loan gets
> paid last if at all
You need to reevaluate your budget. Maybe get a second job,
working at home or something. Maybe loan consolidation is the
answer.
> I pay my loans as long as they are not in collections.
Byron, if you PAID your loans, they wouldn't BE in collections!
If they're in collections, then obviously you didn't PAY them!
And you still OWE that money!
> Remember that you the debter are in control always,and pay yourself
> first always,Never shortchange your retirement because of student loan debt.
Sure. Screw the other students out there out of an affordable
education in order to ensure you can buy that boat when you're
55. Sounds fair to me.
Always pay your debt. As much as they want, and as much as you
can afford, whichever is higher.
> They will never admit it but when you die they get paid in full any
> way.
Yah, out of us RESPONSIBLE taxpayers' and debtors' pockets. Thanks
a lot, deadbeat.
Kevin.
--
Java Programmer, Matrix fanatic
"There is no spoon."
- Neo
Kevin
Ray Woodcock wrote:
>
> The striking thing is that so many borrowers are feeling such extreme
> resentment against the collectors that they would rather lose all that
> than knuckle under to injustice and extortion. There are some
> profoundly alienated people in the student loan pool. I'm not sure
> it's such a brilliant idea to treat them like public enemies.
They are thieves. They have robbed a bank, only they've used
a pen and paper instead of a gun and mask. They have received
money which they did not earn and cannot/will not give it back.
Ray Woodcock
> byron davis wrote:
> >
> > The $500 NDSL that is in collections I will never pay on because I
> > refuse to deal with rude collection agencies.
>
> Huh? You didn't seem to think they were too rude when
> you BORROWED that $500. That's THEIR money, Byron, why
> should they be polite? You agreed to pay it back by a
> certain date, and didn't.
If I remember correctly, Byron was saying that the $500 is actually not
their money, but is instead some kind of additional charge they tacked
on. If you know anyone who has had trouble paying back a student loan,
they may be able to tell you about collection fees that wildly exceed
the actual amount of the work done by the collection agent. I mean,
we're talking about hundreds or even thousands of dollars in exchange
for a few letters and phone calls.
I'm not sure if ottawa.com is in Canada; if so, maybe the situation is
different up there.
Anyway, Byron apparently considers that tacked-on charge excessive. He
might be right, or he might not. All things being equal, he and the
student loan people should have equal opportunity to hash it out before
a disinterested third party. The unfortunate reality is that the
guarantors, at least, tend to hire very good attorneys, at public
expense, to behave in ways that may not serve the public interest,
while the student borrowers tend to have to represent themselves --
generally leading to a very one-sided match.
> And they DO have ways of getting it back, if they really
> wanted to be bastards. They can garner your paycheck or
> intercept any government grants/income tax refunds that
> ever come your way.
I think they do everything they can to the borrower, to the fullest
extent of the law. That seems to be the general experience, and there
have been some comments to that effect from knowledgeable individuals
in previous postings. For instance, Marsha (who worked at a guaranty
agency) told the guy from Australia that they'd track him down, and I
think she also confirmed that there was no way they would ever settle a
debt in order to collect at least part of it. I think they're pretty
much required to fight to the death, except as otherwise authorized by
statute or regulation.
> Byron, the reality is that we are all the masters of our
> own destinies. We all have choices to make. If someone
> chooses to get a BA in art history then whines about how
> they can't afford to pay back their $15,000, am I supposed
> to feel sympathy for this person?
It's a fair question. It doesn't seem like the loans should be there
in the first place -- like these educations should be grant-funded or
something -- if there's no good chance of earning an income
commensurate with the debt.
But once a person does get into that sort of hole, it seems only fair
to ask whether it's always the student's fault. People who are first
in their families to earn college degrees may sometimes naively assume
that "higher education," in some general sense, automatically makes you
more employable, even if the education is in the wrong field or is
received at a very mediocre school. Marketing people who earn their
livings promoting particular colleges sometimes encourage such mistaken
beliefs. There have been some serious abuses along those lines.
And then you've got the professors who believe (rightly, to some
extent) that education and employability are not always compatible;
they, too, are sometimes able to show impressionable young people why
art history and other fields deserve one's devotion. I'm not sure
where our liberal arts would be today if there hadn't been scribes and
monks, living at public expense, carrying forward the record of the
ancient world. Whether we like it or not, money does not always
gravitate toward the most worthwhile things in life.
> Should I help them pay
> back their loan for them? Should the government force me
> to? This is what happens when people declare bankruptcy.
I know that seems like the only logical conclusion, but there's
actually more to the story. See footnote 276 of my article at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3215/article.htm.
> It's $500, Byron. I believe you can afford to pay that
> back. I believe you are refusing to, out of spite. I
> don't think that is a good reason.
Let's say that's true, for the sake of argument. In that case, would
we have more admiration for a person who refused to pay $5 or a person
who refused to pay $5,000? The latter, we would think, was motivated
mostly by selfishness; the former would seem to be motivated by some
kind of principle. It might not be a principle we would agree with;
the person and the principle might seem foolish to us; yet it would
seem that at least we were dealing with someone who was standing up for
something s/he believed in.
The situation, as I understand it, is that the collection agency
charged an amount that Byron considers excessive. If our society were
keen to resolve disputes, we would call together the village elders and
they'd sort out the matter in twenty minutes. Our absurdly expensive
legal system will instead put Byron and the collection agent through a
six-month or longer ordeal before they get a chance to tell their
stories -- and then, if the case proceeds as mine did, the judge will
order them to submit their stories in writing (requiring a lot more
time and energy) and will then refuse to read Byron's side of it after
all.
In Byron's case, there may never be a quick, focused factfinding that
might tend to reduce all this third-party commentary. Instead, we're
left with a situation in which the facts won't come out and we'll have
to hash out our various opinions from a distance. It's a strange way
to solve problems, but it's pretty much all we've got.
> > Home and car loans seem to apply payment properly with no hassle.
> > For what its worth bills for most people must be prioritized.I like
many
> > put my student loans as my last priority.
>
> Why do you have to prioritize your bills? You shouldn't have to
> say "I'll pay this first, this second, and if there's anything
> left, I'll pay this one." Why? Why not just say "Oh, a bill is
> here, I think I shall pay it." Why don't you have the money to
> pay ALL your bills EVERY time? Why are you living paycheck to
> paycheck? You don't prioritize your bills, you just pay them.
> That's how life is supposed to work. If you receive a good/
> service, you pay for it.
I think you may be one of those individuals I mentioned last time, who
has had the good fortune never to experience significant financial
hardship. Maybe if you talk with some people who have had to
prioritize their resources, you'll understand what Byron is saying.
> How would you like it if your boss prioritized employees? Paying
> directors first, then managers, then if there's any money left,
> they pay you? Get the idea?
They do. I used to work for a law office that arranged compensation
for Fortune 500 CEOs. You have described exactly how the process
works, although I'll grant that the public doesn't usually get the full
skinny on what's going on behind those closed doors. All we see is
that the guy who ran the company into the ground still walks away with
his $3 million in compensation, while his former employees are on the
unemployment line or are going back to technical schools in search of a
way to keep their homes.
> > I pay myself first, mutual fund, then mortgage, car,food utilities
then
> > student loan.If its a tight month and I have to budget student loan
gets
> > paid last if at all
>
> You need to reevaluate your budget. Maybe get a second job,
> working at home or something. Maybe loan consolidation is the
> answer.
OK. Well, thanks for the advice.
> > Remember that you the debter are in control always,and pay yourself
> > first always,Never shortchange your retirement because of student
loan debt.
>
> Sure. Screw the other students out there out of an affordable
> education in order to ensure you can buy that boat when you're
> 55. Sounds fair to me.
At $2,200 a month, he's not buying a boat anytime soon. It took me
twenty years to save enough for my boat. (Just kidding.)
My article has some material on the question of whether the student
loan funds are suffering quite as much as some have claimed. Let me
know if you would like the citation for that material.
> > They will never admit it but when you die they get paid in full any
> > way.
>
> Yah, out of us RESPONSIBLE taxpayers' and debtors' pockets. Thanks
> a lot, deadbeat.
>
> Kevin
Might be overkill, Kevin. It sounds to me like he is paying his loans,
as much as he's able. He's got a beef about the collection agency's
trumped-up fee, but that's not money for the student loan fund anyway.
Name-calling isn't new; we've heard a lot of it by now. It just
confirms that people like to waltz in, misunderstand the facts, and
tell themselves that they are better than us. I daresay we could find
some irresponsibility, some failure to carry through on promises, in
anyone's life. I hope your e-mail handle -- kombat -- does not imply
an unwillingness to seek good solutions to the problems under
discussion in this newsgroup.
Ray Woodcock
> Ray Woodcock wrote:
> >
> > The striking thing is that so many borrowers are feeling such
extreme
> > resentment against the collectors that they would rather lose all
that
> > than knuckle under to injustice and extortion. There are some
> > profoundly alienated people in the student loan pool. I'm not sure
> > it's such a brilliant idea to treat them like public enemies.
>
> They are thieves. They have robbed a bank, only they've used
> a pen and paper instead of a gun and mask. They have received
> money which they did not earn and cannot/will not give it back.
First, a few caveats:
1. The bank got its money back, if it's a federally guaranteed student
loan and has been declared in default. If they robbed anyone, they
robbed the federal government. This would be wrong, but let's remember
that a lot of bankers do it too.
2. If they cannot (as opposed to will not) give it back, they're not
thieves. They're just people who made a promise and didn't keep it.
That's not good either, but see point 1, above.
But those are tangential issues. The point I was really going after
was that I have yet to hear a good explanation for why Timothy McVeigh
blew up that building and killed those people in Oklahoma, or why kids
are shooting up the schoolhouse. We've got all this talk about how the
threat of terrorism is growing, and yet I'm not sure we really
understand why.
The scary thing about Timothy McVeigh was that he didn't have to get a
visa. He flew right under the radar all the way to his target. Other
American citizens can, and probably will, do the same thing. How
come? I have to believe that the things that irritated McVeigh were
trivial when compared to the lives of the 168 people he killed; but of
course he does not seem to have drawn guidance from my opinion on the
matter.
I'd be amazed if someone blew up a building or an airliner because s/he
couldn't pay back some student loans. Then again, I was amazed that
McVeigh's actions seemed to depend somehow on that goofy scene with the
Branch Davidians, down in Waco. Until I get a lot better at predicting
which trivial concerns are going to make someone go postal, it seems
wiser to give people some respect, to try to understand what pressures
are driving them over the edge, and to engage them in a constructive
discussion of possible solutions.
You only have to meet a few hundred humans to get the general idea that
we all screw up in some pretty significant ways. You, Kevin, might be
better than us in the loan repayment department, but that's very
different from being a better person. Given the harshness of your
reply, for instance, I wonder whether you would be able to teach kids
how to be kind; I wonder whether someone like you, a few centuries ago,
would have been capable of the religious toleration that made it
possible for so many different kinds of people to get together under
one flag.
Maybe it's always been true that a portion of the public is eager to
condemn rather than seek workable solutions. I don't know what is the
matter with those people. But as long as they're determined to put
someone else down, some of their victims are going to be determined to
respond in kind, and a small fraction of those victims will use extreme
measures if necessary.
Byron sounds like a pretty reasonable guy, but shouldn't we stop and
ponder the idea that, if this is happening to him, it's probably
happening to some of his other buddies there in the military? They
probably have similar debts; they probably get similar treatment from
the collection agents; they probably share his irritation, although
perhaps more silently and angrily. Timothy McVeigh was ex-military
too. To me, the idea of tossing gratuitous insults at people like
Byron seems just plain dumb.
They say you can make a good dog bad by hitting him with a stick. I
think the idea is that, if he doesn't understand the punishment, he'll
hold it against you. Do we need to conduct experiments to see whether
humans will react similarly?
In short, there may be some borrowers who are simply abusing the
student loan system; but we do students and the public a real
disservice if we automatically assume that all struggling or bankrupt
borrowers are thieves.
byron davis
is that once its turned over to a collection company the chances of ever
getting the bill paid is reduced.
Most people I know that owe college loans would like to pay ,it sucks
not being able to pay, Student loans must be prioritized like most other
loans and ussualy they are a last priority .This is due mostly to the
collection agencies hyper inflated fees.
Even the collection agencies know that they wont collect most of the
time.
As for Kevin maybe he has one of those computer jobs that allow him to
make 100K a year I dont know, or maybe he lives off a trust fund.
Any way his life and income has been good and he is able to just pay
bills as they come. My point is that not everyone is in that position of
a Kevin due to any number of factors.
By the way I do pay my student loans and have paid over 10k in loans
since I graduated over a decade ago.I puposely dont pay on my $500 NDSL
becuase Im tired of lining the pockets of wealty collection Co Execs.Ive
probably long since paid it off anyway.They seem to think that the more
late fees they add that the more likely I will pay.They will give up and
I am garnish proof.
I feel sorry for todays Grads as College students today are really going
to become lifelong wage slaves as college cost are inflated.
Why is it no big deal when big companies in Corporate America go
bankrupt for billions of dollars or wealthy people go bankruptand keep
their 500k mansions?
Why is it that when people dont have the option to bankrupt on a student
loan or cant pay that some people think that is such a crime.
Maybe some wealthy people need a lesson in poverty.
Byron
http://community.webtv.net/lincbc/wwwlincbccom
Kevin
byron davis wrote:
>
> As for Kevin maybe he has one of those computer jobs that allow him to
> make 100K a year I dont know, or maybe he lives off a trust fund.
LOL! I *do* have a computer job, but I make far less than $100K. :)
First of all, I'm in Canada, so our dollar is worth far less, and we
pay much more taxes. And I've only been out of school for a year and
a half. I make enough to pay bills and have fun, but I wouldn't say
I'm rich or have it easy.
> By the way I do pay my student loans and have paid over 10k in loans
> since I graduated over a decade ago.I puposely dont pay on my $500 NDSL
> becuase Im tired of lining the pockets of wealty collection Co Execs.
I have trouble with this image. It seems to me tha a collection
agent would be a really (pardon the language) sh*tty job. People
threatening you, no one respects you, and I don't imagine they
really make that much money. It's just a lot of paperwork,
investigation, and nasty phone calls. Why would anyone want to do
that, even IF the money was above average?
> I feel sorry for todays Grads as College students today are really going
> to become lifelong wage slaves as college cost are inflated.
Sadly, this is truer now than ever before. But don't lay all
the blame on the banks and the collection agencies - look to
your government and schools as well. You live in a country
that values guns more than an education. You're going to be
the nation with the biggest army and the dumbest, poorest
citizens - doesn't that scare you?
none
think that is a little high? Does that tick me off enough to blow up a
student loan collection agency? No, but sooner or later, someone will.
People will only take so much abuse.
Kevin <kom...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:393B05C1...@ottawa.com...
>
>
> byron davis wrote:
> >
> > The $500 NDSL that is in collections I will never pay on because I
> > refuse to deal with rude collection agencies.
>
> Huh? You didn't seem to think they were too rude when
> you BORROWED that $500. That's THEIR money, Byron, why
> should they be polite? You agreed to pay it back by a
> certain date, and didn't.
>
> And they DO have ways of getting it back, if they really
> wanted to be bastards. They can garner your paycheck or
> intercept any government grants/income tax refunds that
> ever come your way.
>
> > This post will probably piss some people off but Im just stating
> > reality.
>
> Byron, the reality is that we are all the masters of our
> own destinies. We all have choices to make. If someone
> chooses to get a BA in art history then whines about how
> they can't afford to pay back their $15,000, am I supposed
> to feel sympathy for this person? Should I help them pay
> back their loan for them? Should the government force me
> to? This is what happens when people declare bankruptcy.
>
> > Why cant the student loan companies be accountable for their actions as
> > well.
>
> They are. When they let people like you go, all that does
> is drive up their costs, makes them more cynical to the
> students, and increases the interest rates for other
> students that really need that money.
>
> It's $500, Byron. I believe you can afford to pay that
> back. I believe you are refusing to, out of spite. I
> don't think that is a good reason.
>
> If you can afford this Internet access, then you can afford
> to pay back your $500 debt.
>
> > Home and car loans seem to apply payment properly with no hassle.
> > For what its worth bills for most people must be prioritized.I like many
> > put my student loans as my last priority.
>
> Why do you have to prioritize your bills? You shouldn't have to
> say "I'll pay this first, this second, and if there's anything
> left, I'll pay this one." Why? Why not just say "Oh, a bill is
> here, I think I shall pay it." Why don't you have the money to
> pay ALL your bills EVERY time? Why are you living paycheck to
> paycheck? You don't prioritize your bills, you just pay them.
> That's how life is supposed to work. If you receive a good/
> service, you pay for it.
>
> How would you like it if your boss prioritized employees? Paying
> directors first, then managers, then if there's any money left,
> they pay you? Get the idea?
>
> > I pay myself first, mutual fund, then mortgage, car,food utilities then
> > student loan.If its a tight month and I have to budget student loan gets
> > paid last if at all
>
> You need to reevaluate your budget. Maybe get a second job,
> working at home or something. Maybe loan consolidation is the
> answer.
>
> > I pay my loans as long as they are not in collections.
>
> Byron, if you PAID your loans, they wouldn't BE in collections!
> If they're in collections, then obviously you didn't PAY them!
> And you still OWE that money!
>
> > Remember that you the debter are in control always,and pay yourself
> > first always,Never shortchange your retirement because of student loan
debt.
>
> Sure. Screw the other students out there out of an affordable
> education in order to ensure you can buy that boat when you're
> 55. Sounds fair to me.
>
> Always pay your debt. As much as they want, and as much as you
> can afford, whichever is higher.
>
> > They will never admit it but when you die they get paid in full any
> > way.
>
> Yah, out of us RESPONSIBLE taxpayers' and debtors' pockets. Thanks
> a lot, deadbeat.
>
Maureen
get out of college and have everything it took their parents years to
acquire...like a house, two nice cars, and lots of extras that were not so
commonplace years ago.
I had $15,000 in loans after completing my bachelor degree, so can
sympathize with the difficulty of paying them off. However, my education
would not have been possible without those loans, and I've found the lending
institutions willing to work with me on making payments more reasonable
(albeit slightly). I did this while I was in a good situation in that I had
made all payments in full and on time. There are also debt consolidation
loans and many other ways to overcome financial obstacles.
As an Army member you are also jeopardizing your career by not making
appropriate payments on time. The Army should also have some financial
advisors at your duty location that may be able to help with your situation.
We also mustn't forget that loan institutions are businesses, and people who
don't pay back what they've borrowed jeopardize future borrowers in the form
on increased interest rates and the like. Collection agencies are there to
help ensure loan institutions regain some of the sunk costs associated with
defaulted loans.
It is your duty to pay back what you owe!!
Maureen
<john...@my-deja.com> wrote
> >Byron:
>
> Byron, oh Byron, how many times have I heard this same story. You chose
> to live in Nebraska, you chose to get married, have kids, etc. You
> have choices my friend. Currently federal (stafford) student loans do
> not default until 270 days after being delinquent. In the meantime,
> you have 3-5 years of forbearance available from the lender, a 6 month
> grace period, unemploymnet deferments available, economic hardship
> depending on your loan disbursement period, income sensitive repayment
> plans, etc. You say you refuse to deal with rude collection people.
> Perhaps if you didn't let your loan get as delinquent as it did you
> would not encounter such rudeness.
>
> Currently, federal guaranteed student loans do not default as mentioned
> previously until 9 months from delinquency. Once this happens, the
> guaranty agency will work the account for up to 4 months. Then and only
> then does it get assigned to a collection agency. Now are you telling
> me with all this time available to you the loan still defaulted? Give
> me a break.
>
> Jon
>
>
> P.S. I have been on both sides as I am currently paying back my loans.
>
> So i am not a person without a conscience as Mr. Woodcock would
> like you to think.
>
>
Pinelands3
Must be nice to sock away $300.00 a month into a mutual fund. I wish I could
so the same. But you see, for the first half of my adult married life, we were
paying back my husband's student loans, and now we have a child in college with
another just behind him. I sure would love to be able to put $300.00 into a
mutual fund, but my priorities don't allow that to happen. I feel my first
responsibility was to the government, who helped educate my husband. My next
priority is to my kids, and I will help them with their education. Yes, I have
a small next egg for retirement, but not at the expense of defaulting on
student loans. Give me a break...
Ray Woodcock
> Even the collection agencies know that they wont collect most of the
> time.
The taxpayer actually suffers from the lucrative collection fees. When
excessive fees provoke borrowers to give up hope of repaying their
loans, the taxpayer is the last one waiting in line -- behind
collection agents, bankers, and guaranty agencies.
Your payments go to all those other players, until they have looted you
for the maximum amount of fees and penalties allowed by law. Only then
does the government apply your payments to the actual loan amount,
i.e., to repayment of the taxpayer. When all these other parties have
an interest in dragging the thing out, the taxpayer can wait a very
long time.
This doesn't suggest that the borrower should roll over and allow
him/herself to be mauled. It suggests that the government that allows
extortionate collection fees is not thinking of the public interest. I
don't think most taxpayers want to see student borrowers robbed.
Certainly not those taxpayers whose own kids have borrowed, or may
someday borrow, from the student loan funds.
> I feel sorry for todays Grads as College students today are really
going
> to become lifelong wage slaves as college cost are inflated.
Well, it will be interesting. Something's got to give. It seems
likely that the cost of college education will continue to rise faster
than inflation, for as long as the colleges can milk it. Not that all
colleges are riding high; they're just riding higher than a good many
of their graduates.
To keep the student loan dollars coming in the doors, the colleges must
be grateful for the higher limits on student borrowing. To keep down
the grumbling about how tough it is to repay those higher amounts, the
colleges also probably appreciate the government's growing flexibility
on the subject of deferments and forbearances.
We've heard Jon and Marsha explain how a person may now qualify for up
to ten years' worth of postponements on repayment. Mix up those
postponements with an occasional year or two of employment, and you've
got people who may spend fifteen years or more repaying. There have
already been bankruptcy cases in which judges have ordered student
borrowers, or their parents, to continue repayment well into their
retirement years -- to the age of 75 in one case, if I recall correctly.
I'm not sure if the bubble will burst and a large number of people will
suddenly insist on the right to be debt-free. I imagine that could
happen in an economic crisis.
But, instead, maybe the government will keep on "solving" the default
problem by making repayment terms ever easier, creating new kinds of
deferments and forbearances, or extending the existing ones, so that
people will come to accept that they must basically live in lower-
quality homes and live meaner lives than college graduates once lived.
It may even become common knowledge that one must spend one's life in
debt in exchange for a college education. That's when, sadly, a
college education will begin to sound like an absurd extravagance to a
great many average people.
> Why is it no big deal when big companies in Corporate America go
> bankrupt for billions of dollars or wealthy people go bankruptand keep
> their 500k mansions?
This is one of the most remarkable aspects of the bankruptcy
experience. It appears that we already have a fairly sharp class
distinction between commoners and the aristocracy in this country.
What the rich and famous do with their personal finances may be
interesting, but we seem not to interpret their behavior in moral
terms. If one of them files bankruptcy, the media do not present
him/her as scum. The impression appears to be, instead, that we all
hope s/he gets back on his/her feet as soon as possible. We don't
think about the people who are left holding the bag.
If, however, an ordinary person files bankruptcy, there's no end to the
parade of individuals who will line up to throw rotten tomatoes. We've
seen some of that moralistic behavior in this newsgroup; people seem to
feel that it's almost their duty to assume the worst about you.
I don't think that's an entirely unhealthy attitude. We should react
negatively to people who abuse the trust that others have placed in
them. Not forever, I'd say; no point telling someone that there's no
hope of redemption. But a ripoff artist should not run free.
If we must reach a negative opinion, however, we should do so on the
basis of the facts, rather than simply assuming the worst about someone
who may have had no alternative. Unfortunately, our courts are
generally incapable of finding and presenting such facts in a timely
and understandable manner. So everyone has to find out the facts for
themselves; and since that's not feasible, most of us have to rely on
hunches and assumptions about the morality of the borrower.
Which makes it all the more remarkable that the country did not scream
bloody murder when savings & loan executives ripped off the taxpayers
for several hundred billion dollars during the S&L collapse in the late
1980s and early 1990s. There appears to be far more moral outrage
toward defaulting student borrowers than there was toward those
executives, even though the S&L losses were far greater and, unlike the
educational funding program, produced nothing that could benefit the
public.
> Maybe some wealthy people need a lesson in poverty.
It's been a dream of the poor since biblical times. It happens
occasionally, but it will never happen to the extent necessary to
equalize things. Shrewd people, and dishonest people, will always find
a way to come out on top.
If we're going to wish poverty on anyone, perhaps we should instead
wish it on the middle class. I haven't reached that point yet, but I'm
curious about it. I'm hoping to do more reading in the near future on
the effects of the Great Depression on people's attitudes. What I've
heard so far suggests that people became more compassionate and less
snobbish toward lower classes when they began to experience some of the
same hardships. That kinder attitude in hardship might partly explain
why, out of all Americans, the poor give the largest share of their
income to charity.
Kevin <kom...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>
> I *do* have a computer job, but I make far less than $100K. :)
> First of all, I'm in Canada, so our dollar is worth far less, and we
> pay much more taxes. And I've only been out of school for a year and
> a half. I make enough to pay bills and have fun, but I wouldn't say
> I'm rich or have it easy.
Hey, good for you. This pretty much matches the picture I had of you.
Maybe we've exposed you to a somewhat different perspective on the
student loan situation down here in the States.
I'm impressed that we haven't bored you yet. It seems like most young
people just assume that everyone is pretty much middle-class -- except,
perhaps, for those of us who are "white trash" or who live in the
ghetto or barrio.
> It seems to me tha a collection
> agent would be a really (pardon the language) sh*tty job. People
> threatening you, no one respects you, and I don't imagine they
> really make that much money.
I think that's right. I took Byron to be talking about the owners of
the collection agency, not the employees. I can understand why the
employees would have to tell themselves that borrowers are all cheats
and liars. It would be tough to live with yourself if you admitted
that you were beating down people who didn't have enough to live on.
> ... don't lay all
> the blame on the banks and the collection agencies - look to
> your government and schools as well. You live in a country
> that values guns more than an education. You're going to be
> the nation with the biggest army and the dumbest, poorest
> citizens - doesn't that scare you?
Heard about a test of kids from 17 nations. The American kids scored
last on the math portion of the test. However, they came in first on
the self-appraisal section. That portion of the test required them to
rate themselves on a scale from 1 to 10 on the question, "I am very
good in math." They were sure they were. THAT's the scary part. Dumb
doesn't mean not knowing things; it means you don't realize that you
don't know things.
In that sense, some of the most ignorant people I've ever come across
graduated from Harvard -- the law school, that is, not the college. I
wouldn't make that a blanket statement, applicable to all Harvard Law
grads; but if you take someone who lacks the ability to question
themselves, and give them the power of a Harvard Law credential, they
can become truly dangerous. I'm working on a book on a federal judge
that may illustrate this point in more detail.
I've been told that the purpose of a higher education is to teach you
how little you know. The theory seems to be that, if you feel
uninformed, and if you are encouraged to be curious, you'll be
motivated to spend your lifetime learning. A liberal arts education
can stimulate that sort of thing. So can a more purely scientific
education. But a technical education, oriented toward acquiring skills
for the near-term job market, tends to tell the student to stop asking
big questions and focus on tonight's homework. It can squelch one's
interest in learning. In law school, for example, I noticed that some
students reached a point at which reading was work. For such students,
reading can cease to be a source of entertainment or leisure. That is
a truly unfortunate effect of a process that calls itself "educational."
In any case, we can't simultaneously praise those who would educate us
for the long term, by teaching us to think and ask questions, and damn
them for not giving us a way of repaying our student loans now. Yet
that is precisely the position in which we find ourselves, thanks to
the combination of inflated tuition and an overly oppressive student
loan collection regime.
As for your comment about the largest army, common sense agrees that
money spent on one thing -- defense -- cannot be spent on another --
education. That commonsense reaction is not entirely accurate; some
defense spending leads to new products and even new industries. Of
course, that might be true of almost anything you'd care to drop a few
hundred billion on; even sending someone to the moon raises technical
challenges that call for new solutions.
There are also some Americans who would suggest that the Canadians and
others are benefiting from America's strong military forces. And I
suppose that a person with a pessimistic view of human nature would
prefer to spend a ton on defense and be glad to have a little left over
for education, rather than spend it all on education in order to see
our educated people become servants of a foreign power.
Having said all that -- and leaving unsaid a good deal more along those
lines -- it remains true that the performance of a hundred-million-
dollar military airplane is breathtaking, not only because it is so
impressive, but also because there goes a thousand school libraries
that we could have had.
Ray Woodcock
> Must be nice to sock away $300.00 a month into a mutual fund.
That's $3,600 a year. With interest, it might seem like it will become
a lot. But inflation will take most of the life out of it. They say
that inflation now is very low, but I'm not sure that's accurate for
the lives of the working poor. Food, gasoline, and rent certainly seem
to have risen markedly in the past few years in at least some
locations. And we certainly cannot count on inflation to remain low in
coming decades. It has been less than twenty years since the last time
it wiped out life's savings and devastated fixed-income retirees.
If you invest at a real rate of return of 2%, after taxes and inflation
and the ups and downs of the stock market, your $3,600 per year will
give you $146,000, thirty years from now, in today's dollars. If you
and your spouse live another twenty years after that, the two of you
will have the kind of retired life that you could now buy for about
$9,000 per year -- assuming that you will never have to dip into your
savings for any emergencies during the next fifty years, and assuming
that there hasn't been another Great Depression that wiped out your
mutual fund altogether. If Social Security still exists and doesn't
disqualify you because you saved something for yourself, you might
actually notice that your life, as a retiree, is somewhat better than
poverty level.
We can beat on each other because one of us has $10 to live on per day
and the other one has only $7, but the real point is that none of us
has much when compared to the wealthy.
> I feel my first
> responsibility was to the government, who helped educate my husband.
Just to clarify: it was the school that educated your husband. The
government consisted of federal employees who got good salaries for
steering tax dollars from taxpayers to the school. When things work
out, it seems reasonable to feel a sense of responsibility to the
school and the taxpayers, and a sense of gratitude to the government
employees who helped it happen.
If the government does its job poorly, however, I am not certain that
we should begin by finding fault with the student. Certainly someone
will have to pay for the costs of setting government back on the right
track -- but only after someone does set the government back on the
right track. Given the continued mismanagement of the federal student
loan programs by the Department of Education, I am not convinced that
we have yet reached the cleanup phase of this operation. In other
words, it may be premature to find fault with borrowers as long as
federal investigators continue to lay so much blame elsewhere.
The matter could end there if it ended there. Unfortunately, new
students continue to take out student loans, and underemployed college
graduates continue to take a beating from student loan collectors. At
a certain point, those of us who are ill-served by this sort of thing
must ask whether, indeed, the expensive educations were worth what we
paid for them.
What we find is that the average student loan debt continues to
increase because the costs of tuition continue to rise, at a rate much
higher than the overall rate of inflation. This may be fine for those
graduates whose incomes turn out to be much higher than the incomes of
previous graduates. The rest of us, however, begin to realize that the
school was actually not so concerned after all with what would happen
to us. We reflect upon the fact that the school made money from us --
money that passed through our hands only briefly, on its way from
lenders who received a handsome, guaranteed return from the federal
government.
Under the circumstances, we would like to ask the taxpayers whether
they are aware that they are funding an educational establishment that
yields disappointing results in a large number of students' lives.
Moreover, we want the taxpayers to realize that the people collecting
on these student loans are free to tack on large, unjustified fees for
their personal benefit -- at the taxpayers' expense, in the case of
those loans that do not get fully repaid. We suspect that taxpayers
would not approve this sort of thing, particularly because the
taxpayers themselves could wind up in a similar position, as student
borrowers or as co-signers on their children's loans. In other words,
there seems to be some slippage between what the public wants and what
Congress has been doing in the student loan realm.
We all agree that people should be responsible with the monies involved
in the student loan program. But who bears the greatest
responsibility? Who has the most power to arrange that program so that
its costs do not exceed its benefits? Certainly not the borrower. We
could join hands with upper-income federal judges who delight in
sneering at us, but it seems more appropriate to recognize that we
borrowers are all wrestling with an undesirable set of circumstances,
and that those circumstances could, and should, be improved.