Recent investigations have uncovered misbehavior by the lending industry, often in cahoots with colleges, at the expense of students. Federal law is intended to protect students by guaranteeing that loans must help students, not produce excessive profits for lenders.
Senate Democrats are addressing the student loan crisis — but we need your help to make sure that the Higher Education Bill is enacted into law. We can’t let Senate Republicans block action on this bill the same way they’re blocking legislation to end the war.
College education is more important than ever. It?s time to throw the money-lenders out of the temple of higher education.
One way you can help is to illustrate this problem for the rest of our community. Leave your own student loan horror stories below, so that everyone can understand just how badly broken the current system is. When people know the facts, they?ll demand reform, and millions of students will benefit.
Thank you for your attention and support.
Keep up the good work Senator. This is indeed a very important bill, and to me is one of the key pieces that America needs to ensure that the American dream stays alive and that we don’t slide into a situation where social mobility is just a pipe dream.
<
p>
Thoguh I’m not familiar with all of the details, I believe that the “capping student loan payments at 15 percent of discretionary income” section is a strong step in the right direction of how higher education policy should develop. I would suggest that this policy idea be expanded in future bills, such that there is a close correlation between a debtor’s current income and the amount of repayment (or loan foregiveness).
<
p>
Given that one of the goals of higher education is to raise salaries and standards of living, it would make sense to specify that as one’s income rises, the rate of repayment rises along with it, and vice-versa. That way, people who run into bad luck (i.e. lose a job) or choose lower-paying fields (even if not “public service”, necessarily) do not have excessive loan payments, while insuring that the government recoups the loan payouts from those most able to afford it.
<
p>
In any case, this bill is a strong step forward, and thanks to Sen. Kennedy for his leadership on this issue.
Senator Kennedy, would this include public school teachers and nurses working at publicly funded medical facilities?
<
p>
So the taxpayers lend to students to get degrees, then the taxpayer forgives the loan if the student becomes a government employee.
<
p>
Why not forgive the loan if the kid doesn’t go to work for the government. You know, capitalism and all that stuff that actually paid for the students’ loans and grants.
Free higher ed for everyone! Who knew gary was a raging socialist?
<
p>
Exactly — that’s what I’m getting at in my above comment. Loan forgiveness should be based more on future earnings than who the student’s employer is. The public servant forgiveness is a rough proxy because government employees generally don’t make a large amount, but there’s plenty of other non-government jobs that are relatively low-paying that should be eligible for loan forgiveness (i.e. private school teachers, social workers, etc.).
Wittless ad hominen notwithstanding, could someone articulate the policy argument behind student loan forgiveness for government employees?
As an incentive for talented people to fill public employee positions. Given that these positions have to filled to provide services society wants, then it makes sense that we would want skilled people in these jobs.
not government employees. Read your own quote. You do know there’s a difference, right?
is fairly specific as to which types of public service professionals are eligible. As I posted further down, it includes social workers, EMTs, public school teachers, public defenders, prosecutors, and public interest lawyers. I’m not sure what’s so offensive about offering incentives to go into those types of fields.
Simplify. Just give every 18 year old $120,000 — upfront — to spend on 4 years of school, or whatever.
<
p>
What’s the f**king difference?
<
p>
That way you can eliminate the blood sucking lenders (bastards!) So much for that “crisis.”
<
p>
Next up: free health care for all, gas for the car, and lifetime employment, too!
This is the difference right here between Democrats and Republicans, at least lately — while so many Republicans maintain a religious-like commitment to a philosopical, pie-in-the-sky ideology detached from reality (“anything the government does is horrible!!!”), the Democrats are forging ahead with pragmatic solutions such as this that will benefit (1) individuals needing education, (2) employers looking for more skilled workers, and (3) the US economy in general, which an educated populace reinforces.
<
p>
It’s pretty sad that there are so many zealots with ideological blinders on so strong as to make one think that a higher education plan such as this is equivalent to just handing someone $120,000 for “whatever” or providing lifetime gasoline for cars.
I’m 100% against the government forgiving debt when it’s the taxpayers who should be doing the forgiving.
<
p>
It’s the same as Gov. Patrick forgiving imprudent mortgage borrowers from their debt obligations because they got in over their heads … it wasn’t his mortgage to forgive in the first place. Why isn’t it the same with school loans? Isn’t that the taxpayer’s money?
<
p>
By the way, please explain what my “pie-in-the-sky ideology” is? And how is it detached from reality?
<
p>
You’re not a banker, are you?
There’s a reason Ted Kennedy is so beloved in his home state and across the country. He has been a tireless advocate for access to higher education for ALL students, and this legislation is another push for that goal. I only wish that some of what Senator Kennedy has done related to higher ed loans and such was in place when I was in college!
* Providing student loan forgiveness for students who choose public service careers.
<
p>
Horrible, horrible idea. You’ll just be fostering the next generation of bureaucrats.
<
p>
* Holding colleges more accountable for rising costs, by publicizing colleges whose increased costs are excessive.
<
p>
Who decides what is “excessive?”
<
p>
My daughter is going to college next year. She is considering Brown University among others and their tuition is very expensive. However, we see value in a Brown degree, while others do not, and you may decide their tuition rates are “excessive” while we don’t.
<
p>
Pell grants go to the truly needy. Go Pell Grant. But, most of your policy doesn’t go to Pell Grant. It’s funding student loans.
<
p>
Student loans are a different animal. They’re used significantly by families earning in excess of $92,000 per year.
<
p>
Explain the “take from the middle class, give to the upper middle class” giveaway.
<
p>
With this program you whack the taxpayer twice, first by cutting the interest rate in half and second, by forgiving the loan if kid becomes a government drone.
<
p>
maybe, just maybe, the quality of brain in government will improve. might be nice, seeing as how worthless the current crop are, like kennedy and such, huh?
It may work
… but it might help you know where to look things up.
<
p>
When you look at the hacks infesting government service today you can’t be too impressed with the quality of education being handed out. I can think of on Yale graduate, MBA’d from HBS that shouldn’t be allowed to manage a manure pile. Then there’s the good Senator that went through Harvard twice, the first time ’til he was kicked out and the second time when his dad got him back in.
<
p>
How about a university just for politicians? “No Shame U.” All paid by taxpayer monies, the chant at the football games, “No Shame!, No Shame!”, would have a meaningful ring.
Congrats on your daughter getting into Brown. Congrats, as well, on being able to pay for it.
<
p>
You are correct, of course, the an education at Brown provides value. I have no doubt that if your daughter applies herself at school, she’ll graduate with a degree enabling her to earn upwards of $50,000 a year with zero student loan overhead (again, assuming you’re paying for it.)
<
p>
But what about the kid that went to state school, graduates with $20,000 in debt and can earn only $30,000 a year? These kids are less likely to choose public service jobs because public service doesn’t pay very well (and that’s true partly because tax payers like yourself and Gary see no value in “the bureaucracy,” and pretend as though your general attitude toward it has little to do with the problem you complain about).
<
p>
Providing student loan reform is important not only for the students, but for the economy as well. Students graduating with excessive debt are less likely to marry earlier and raise kids. They are more likely to take jobs they dislike, and then leave those jobs.
<
p>
They are also less likely to venture into home ownership, what with what amounts to half monthly mortgage payment already hanging over their heads. Do you really think the current housing slump has little to do with the debt of what would be first time home buyers?
<
p>
In an age where our kids are going to have to really compete with developing nations like India and China, and already developed nations like Japan, for jobs, it strikes me as foolish to denounce the importance of education via student loan reform, and to do so pretending as though you, and your daughter, don’t have a stake in this game. As though the country will be perfectly okay going on the way it’s going on simply because the current arrangement happens to suit you just fine.
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear. She is not yet going to Brown, but will be applying there after next year (her Senior year in HS).
<
p>
Let me be clear … if she gets into Brown, we will need aid, loans and grants to help with tuition. However, because we see value in an education at Brown, we are willing to take on those burdens.
<
p>
What I have a problem with is Sen. Kennedy saying they will start “holding colleges more accountable for rising costs, by publicizing colleges whose increased costs are excessive.”
<
p>
Who the hell decides what is “excessive?” Brown, at 50K a year compared to a state school at 15K may seem excessive, but since we see value in a Brown degree, we don’t consider it excessive.
<
p>
Government should do as little meddling as possible in free enterprise.
I agree the subjective nature of the excessive rise of costs is problematic. But I think he’s talking about excessive increases, not necessarily excessive tuition.
<
p>
Let’s say Brown raises tuition rates by 10% next year. That would seem excessive even considering the value of the degree. And don’t excessive increases in tuition ultimately devalue the degree? It’s less return on your investment.
If Brown (or Harvard, or UMass or whatever) raises tuition by 10% in one year, let the market decide if that is excessive. Period.
<
p>
Government deciding something is priced too high, be it tuition, gasoline, kiwi fruit or tennis shoes, is counterintuitive. If anything becomes too costly, buyers will decide whether it has enough value for them to continue purchasing it.
in that scenario, your daughter is still stuck at Brown, paying excessive tuition increases. The market correction isn’t immediate. It’s four years away, if ever.
But I also don’t think Kennedy’s idea of providing disincentive for drastic tuition increases is a bad idea either.
<
p>
Look, you can’t be that far away from me on this. Your big complaint about liberalism is that every time a liberal wants to pay for something of marginal value, he turns to the tax payers to fund it.
<
p>
That’s actually been my experience with colleges. Building after building goes up, pay raise after pay raise for administrators is approved. And who does the school look to for more money? Students and parents.
<
p>
The government could provide a reasonable incentive to look inward for inefficiencies before whopping kids with tuition increases that they know the kids will have to pay.
I think that you misunderstand (at least in part) what the bill means when it refers to “public service” careers. It specifically includes professions like EMTs, public school teachers, social workers, public interest lawyers (like those who work for organizations like Greater Boston Legal Services), public defenders, and prosecutors. I don’t think that any of those professions fits within the “bureaucrat” rubric. The purpose of the provision is to encourage individuals who want to pursue a career in, for example, social work or public defense, but who can’t afford to because they are not independently wealthy. Maybe you disagree, but I think that individuals in these professions provide great value to society — and their salaries are often a fraction of what the real “bureaucrats” are making.
Keep up the good work, Senator.
<
p>
While you’re at it, how about a more enlightened position on Cape Wind?
hello
i am sam the only way to fix this problem is government should start taking some steps because slowly slowly this issue has became so big that an individual can not do any thing.
<
p>—————-
<
p>sam
<
p>loan modification