Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
??? Reagan changed the rules - or at least he got a scared Democrat Congress to change the rules - on student loans. I was doing fine until Reagan started wielding his phone and his pen. And yes, the "student loan counseling" that is now required of borrowers did not exist when I took out my loan. (To give you an idea how scared Democrats were, Reagan got them to change the welfare rules to reduce welfare benefits dollar-for-dollar if they tried to better themselves by earning income on the books.)
Why did it not exist at the time? Because student loan programs were based on the premise that the education for which students borrow would pay off in higher earnings, thereby affording the capacity to repay the loan.
What's your solution for un(der)employed student loan borrowers? Lifetime penury?
Here we go again. I had a student loan at that time. I managed to pay back my loan ON TIME and with NO INTEREST.
This, in spite of the fact that I never got a degree (but had to pay the loan back anyway - I read the agreement), AND had to save up the cash to attend a trade school (there were no loans available).
It wasn't just a "premise" that your education paid off in higher earnings. Well, except in your case. You didn't get that "one" job, so you were forced to live a life of minimum wage earnings.
My solution won't help you - that ship has sailed. But I would tell loan borrowers now what I would have told you then - get a job, work hard, get experience and you will have a decent career.
Here we go again. I had a student loan at that time. I managed to pay back my loan ON TIME and with NO INTEREST.
This, in spite of the fact that I never got a degree (but had to pay the loan back anyway - I read the agreement), AND had to save up the cash to attend a trade school (there were no loans available).
It wasn't just a "premise" that your education paid off in higher earnings. Well, except in your case. You didn't get that "one" job, so you were forced to live a life of minimum wage earnings.
My solution won't help you - that ship has sailed. But I would tell loan borrowers now what I would have told you then - get a job, work hard, get experience and you will have a decent career.
I presume you earned more than minimum wage. You might have even been a Subsidy Kid (TM).
??? Reagan changed the rules - or at least he got a scared Democrat Congress to change the rules - on student loans. I was doing fine until Reagan started wielding his phone and his pen. And yes, the "student loan counseling" that is now required of borrowers did not exist when I took out my loan. (To give you an idea how scared Democrats were, Reagan got them to change the welfare rules to reduce welfare benefits dollar-for-dollar if they tried to better themselves by earning income on the books.)
Why did it not exist at the time? Because student loan programs were based on the premise that the education for which students borrow would pay off in higher earnings, thereby affording the capacity to repay the loan.
What's your solution for un(der)employed student loan borrowers? Lifetime penury?
Why are you blaming Reagan and scared Democrats? Democrats didn't even control Congress until 1987 and welfare wasn't significantly changed until the R congress under Clinton.
Why do you think student loan counseling is even bad to begin with? It's just a way to formally make sure the borrower understands when they have to payback the loan.
We have a solution for un(der)employed student loan borrowers... Income based repayment, now IBR doesn't help you, but you chose not to go into management and decided that you wanted to be a burger flipper. You can't complain about you choices now.
??? The industry has a CRA that tracks borrowers and defaulters are blacklisted, so losses are limited. Specifically, every defaulter is pretty much limited to only one default with only one lender. Based on the necessarily skyrocketed APR of these loans, it would take a default rate in the neighborhood of 10 percent to make them unprofitable. Given the high proportion of frequenters (in NC, 35 percent of 1999 borrowers took out at least 10 loans that year), it's difficult to imagine a default rate close to 10 percent.
Why should "the better payers" have to take up the slack for deadbeats? Is 400% APR not already more than enough?
I understand why you feel it's not fair. You should try to save your money and budget. Payday loans are bad!
I presume you earned more than minimum wage. You might have even been a Subsidy Kid (TM).
You are SADLY mistaken. I worked minimum wage while going to school, and barely more than that just out of school, while I was paying back my loan. I DID work 2 jobs, a 40-hour-a-week day job, and a night and weekend job to make ends meet. It wasn't until I turned 30 that I started to make real money.
HARDLY a subsidy kid. My dad made very little money, and mom didn't work. I was told in high school that they couldn't afford college for any of their children, so we were on our own. I never took a cent from my parents from the age of 12, when I started delivering newspapers. I was told that as soon as I could earn money for myself, all luxuries were my responsibility.
Yet, I still managed to buy a house, and now make a good wage.
My point is that what you pay for rent can get you a place in one of the most desirable US cities. Hence, you are overpaying.
Chicago is one of the most desirable US cities?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.