Are You Worried That Debt Deal Will Mess With Your Student Loan?
SodaHead News
2011/08/08 17:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
68 votes
|
|
49% | |||
|
50 votes
|
|
36% | |||
|
20 votes
|
|
14% | |||
We (narrowly) avoided a financial catastrophe. But like last year's health care bill, now that there's been some time to actually dig into the debt deal, it's looking like some of us might end up on the short end of the stick.
According to ABC News, retirees don’t have to worry about getting their Social Security checks and soldiers baking in the Afghan summer heat will get their paychecks while government workers get to keep their jobs.
But some of the rest of us may not be so lucky. For instance, college students who are planning to take out loans to pay for their schooling. Under the new deal, interest on federally subsidized student loans for graduate students will accrue while students are in school. That's a switch from the current deal, where interest doesn't start racking up until they graduate. There's some time, as the new rules don't kick in until July 1, 2012.
One more thing, the changes will also eliminate on-time repayment incentives on all federal student loans effective the same date. That means that if you are taking advantage of the fact that you get 0.5% back on your Stafford loan if you make a year of on-time payments now, wave goodbye to all that.
But ultimately, it's a bad-news/good-news scenario. The changes will create $22 billion in savings, with $17 billion going to preserve the federal Pell grant program, which offers grants of up to $5,550 a year to low-income college students.
According to ABC News, retirees don’t have to worry about getting their Social Security checks and soldiers baking in the Afghan summer heat will get their paychecks while government workers get to keep their jobs.
But some of the rest of us may not be so lucky. For instance, college students who are planning to take out loans to pay for their schooling. Under the new deal, interest on federally subsidized student loans for graduate students will accrue while students are in school. That's a switch from the current deal, where interest doesn't start racking up until they graduate. There's some time, as the new rules don't kick in until July 1, 2012.
One more thing, the changes will also eliminate on-time repayment incentives on all federal student loans effective the same date. That means that if you are taking advantage of the fact that you get 0.5% back on your Stafford loan if you make a year of on-time payments now, wave goodbye to all that.
But ultimately, it's a bad-news/good-news scenario. The changes will create $22 billion in savings, with $17 billion going to preserve the federal Pell grant program, which offers grants of up to $5,550 a year to low-income college students.
Top Opinion
-
Diamond Girl 2011/08/09 12:45:42Yes, I'm worried
+5My youngest son is a Junior this year in College and I am worried about the Government taking control of the Student Loan Program, everything the Government touches goes to hell, why should this be any different.
It's the prices that are killing the educational system, whether they come from tenured professors, unionized public school teachers, or self-awarding administrations. Something ought to be done to control or even reverse cost, that is fair-handed to everyone involved and holds the student's best interests in mind, both economic and academic.
Whether government is involved or not is of no concern to me on its face - what concerns me is that we as a society ought not to reward examples which, dealing in common sense, are obviously about a failure of priorities.
For example, we Ohioans are busy fighting over whether our public safety employees and teachers should be able to collectively bargain. I say: B.S. You have a problem with unions? Go form your own union, and show the rest how it's supposed to be done. We think it isn't "fair" that their wages are higher than private, non-union counterparts ... well, if we're talking about fairness, why not ask that highly inappropriate question - "where's the money going, boss?"
One guy asks that, he gets his hours cut or is fired for disobedience. If a whole staff asks it, he'll hesitate and listen. It's a...
Whether government is involved or not is of no concern to me on its face - what concerns me is that we as a society ought not to reward examples which, dealing in common sense, are obviously about a failure of priorities.
For example, we Ohioans are busy fighting over whether our public safety employees and teachers should be able to collectively bargain. I say: B.S. You have a problem with unions? Go form your own union, and show the rest how it's supposed to be done. We think it isn't "fair" that their wages are higher than private, non-union counterparts ... well, if we're talking about fairness, why not ask that highly inappropriate question - "where's the money going, boss?"
One guy asks that, he gets his hours cut or is fired for disobedience. If a whole staff asks it, he'll hesitate and listen. It's a simple game of proportions.
The American working class is, for lack of a better term, scrotumless. We tell ourselves, "hey, screw that, I'll find a better job." When this month, the job growths figures fell 120,000 short of being sustainable. If job growth itself is unsustainable, what makes everyone think wages that can comfortably support an individual and/or his or her spouse are sustainable at all? I've worked 2 jobs, I've worked the insane 16 hour swing shifts. I've been denied overtime, even though I'd happily do it. It's just a simple matter of looking at the proportions. Or, we can leave the issue alone and go back to working on farms and opening up produce stands on Main Street while some witty man and his trophy wife wiz by in a brand new Honda Hybrid.
Times like these call for collective bargaining and private enterprise to sew the seeds together for a new generation. Instead, we'd just like to say, "Hey, I got mine. Seeya."
I also worked hard with multiple jobs to pay cash for costs, unlike many lazy people who simply borrowed more money.
Two years ago, I had a great job and even though combining school with work left me exhausted, I liked it there. Then my dean told me that I should quit my job, or she wouldn't help me anymore. I didn't borrow more to pay for my expenses, but I had to quit my driving lessons because of it.
Please people, stop being so narrow-minded about students. Sure there are a lot out there who get wasted a couple of times a week, buy new shoes every month and god knows what, but we're not all the same you know.
The problem is when students do not finish or get a degree in a field where there is no demand.
The object of school is to get out and find a trade so....as I tell my children - you need to find a skill that will support you (one that you can fall back on) when times (like now) are tough.
Example: Our church was in financial troubles so I got on a community to come up with a solution. I am conservative and one member is a liberal. I suggested that we target the rich from Houston that were moving into our community and buying up ranches all around us. My liberal counter part said, I am a social welfare worker and I think we need to continue helping the community with out reach programs that we have been doing for years and not target the rich. The committee left things as they were and the liberal has gone onto seminary school receiving financial aid from our church while we have fallen deeper in despair.