Shortening the public service loan forgiveness to 5 years

[dayman]

Ok, I'll just start by saying I'm interested in discussing this. I'm not running for office. I don't claim to have answers. And this is largely a theoretical discussion at this point anyway.

 

So, say we shortened the public service loan forgiveness time to 5 years. That is fairly doable. IMO, it would make economic sense for most students incurring any substantial debt to take advantage of that. Many students would. Public service would almost become apart of our education (which many people think should happen right now anyway).

 

"Public service" btw is pretty broad and does not just refer to government programs fyi. Nonprofits and the like. Most of which are privately run mind you. Also there are many jobs in public service that require specialized education and develop valuable skills that apply to for-profit industry.

 

So what you have is the government investing in the kids education. Then the kids repay a portion with money, and a portion with their time. They gain their education and join the private work force serving the public (and in some cases government as well). So you could conceivably privatize the efforts many of the government programs conservatives hate (presumably increasing their effectiveness and "dumping" the money into our kids instead of the programs that many don't think work). Also you would think that many talented people would end up staying that would have otherwise never gotten involved. Ideally this would help better our country, work to solve problems, and lessen the burden on the government. At least it could dump public money into solving our problems in a way that has some additional benefits (education).

 

Where are all these public service jobs? Well there would have to be more created and I would imagine more would be created if this existed. Either way that's a fair question. And remember of course, if you go to school for something that somehow doesn't translate well to take advantage of this b/c you can make more money and pay for your loans on your own...then by all means just pay off your loans on your own.

 

Anyway...rough idea just thinking about it. Would appreciate some thoughts. Not saying this is a great idea just an idea.

 

EDIT: Since I never explicitly said this anywhere in the post the overall idea is this would allow us to cut back on some of these government run programs that don't seem to work well, invest in education instead, and the provide intensive for talent and numbers to join/create privately run non-profits that help the same issues the ineffective government programs aim to fix now. It is a lofty proposition and would take time and would be a big shift in our national structure so I don't deny it's a little "out there."

Edited April 26, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Ok, I'll just start by saying I'm interested in discussing this. I'm not running for office. I don't claim to have answers. And this is largely a theoretical discussion at this point anyway.

 

So, say we shortened the public service loan forgiveness time to 5 years. That is fairly doable. IMO, it would make economic sense for most students incurring any substantial debt to take advantage of that. Many students would. Public service would almost become apart of our education (which many people think should happen right now anyway).

 

"Public service" btw is pretty broad and does not just refer to government programs fyi. Nonprofits and the like. Most of which are privately run mind you. Also there are many jobs in public service that require specialized education and develop valuable skills that apply to for-profit industry.

 

So what you have is the government investing in the kids education. Then the kids repay a portion with money, and a portion with their time. They gain their education and join the private work force serving the public (and in some cases government as well). So you could conceivably privatize the efforts many of the government programs conservatives hate (presumably increasing their effectiveness and "dumping" the money into our kids instead of the programs that many don't think work). Also you would think that many talented people would end up staying that would have otherwise never gotten involved. Ideally this would help better our country, work to solve problems, and lessen the burden on the government. At least it could dump public money into solving our problems in a way that has some additional benefits (education).

 

Where are all these public service jobs? Well there would have to be more created and I would imagine more would be created if this existed. Either way that's a fair question. And remember of course, if you go to school for something that somehow doesn't translate well to take advantage of this b/c you can make more money and pay for your loans on your own...then by all means just pay off your loans on your own.

 

Anyway...rough idea just thinking about it. Would appreciate some thoughts. Not saying this is a great idea just an idea.

 

EDIT: Since I never explicitly said this anywhere in the post the overall idea is this would allow us to cut back on some of these government run programs that don't seem to work well, invest in education instead, and the provide intensive for talent and numbers to join/create privately run non-profits that help the same issues the ineffective government programs aim to fix now. It is a lofty proposition and would take time and would be a big shift in our national structure so I don't deny it's a little "out there."

 

 

You nailed that, Comrad.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ok, I'll just start by saying I'm interested in discussing this. I'm not running for office. I don't claim to have answers. And this is largely a theoretical discussion at this point anyway.

 

So, say we shortened the public service loan forgiveness time to 5 years. That is fairly doable. IMO, it would make economic sense for most students incurring any substantial debt to take advantage of that. Many students would. Public service would almost become apart of our education (which many people think should happen right now anyway).

 

"Public service" btw is pretty broad and does not just refer to government programs fyi. Nonprofits and the like. Most of which are privately run mind you. Also there are many jobs in public service that require specialized education and develop valuable skills that apply to for-profit industry.

 

So what you have is the government investing in the kids education. Then the kids repay a portion with money, and a portion with their time. They gain their education and join the private work force serving the public (and in some cases government as well). So you could conceivably privatize the efforts many of the government programs conservatives hate (presumably increasing their effectiveness and "dumping" the money into our kids instead of the programs that many don't think work). Also you would think that many talented people would end up staying that would have otherwise never gotten involved. Ideally this would help better our country, work to solve problems, and lessen the burden on the government. At least it could dump public money into solving our problems in a way that has some additional benefits (education).

 

Where are all these public service jobs? Well there would have to be more created and I would imagine more would be created if this existed. Either way that's a fair question. And remember of course, if you go to school for something that somehow doesn't translate well to take advantage of this b/c you can make more money and pay for your loans on your own...then by all means just pay off your loans on your own.

 

Anyway...rough idea just thinking about it. Would appreciate some thoughts. Not saying this is a great idea just an idea.

 

EDIT: Since I never explicitly said this anywhere in the post the overall idea is this would allow us to cut back on some of these government run programs that don't seem to work well, invest in education instead, and the provide intensive for talent and numbers to join/create privately run non-profits that help the same issues the ineffective government programs aim to fix now. It is a lofty proposition and would take time and would be a big shift in our national structure so I don't deny it's a little "out there."

Sounds good....but who leads it? And, part 2 of that question: who manages the privatized efforts?

 

Surely you aren't suggesting that this idea can succeed given the record of the leadership in the Federal government. (Not talking Obama, am talking the career, GSA hot tub guy) Can we trust GSA hot tub guy, or the 50k incompetents/miscreants like him, to lead this effort? Can we trust him to teach these kids a F'ing thing, besides how to be a douche? Do you think these kids will be = served, in terms of getting their careers going, by working for the government, as they would working for a company who hires entry level college kids all the time, and puts meticulous, unmitigated bastards like me in charge of making sure they learn the job...properly?

 

If the same entrenched bureaucrats lead, or are the government version of what we call "client-side" mangers of these efforts, then all you are doing is moving the bottleneck from one place to another. The problem with these government programs is: mostly crap leadership from these bureaucrats, and no way for them to push back on untenable scopes. Rather, they are given incentives to grow these scopes.

 

Ergo, why not extend these same benefits to experienced recent older graduates with a BS(<--non negotiable) degree in engineering, business, etc.? No women's studies majors. Why not also extend this to recent MBA grads, etc., and put them in charge of overseeing the privatized efforts? (Not sure what you mean by privatized, but I'm running with it. Let me know if I'm running in the wrong direction. )

 

Hey, if we want to get "out there", then let's do it.

 

It's not a bad idea, but if you plan on using the same leadership that is currently in place, it becomes a terrible idea.

Edited April 26, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Doc]

How about making welfare recipients do public work for their checks?

[/dev/null]

How about making welfare recipients do public work for their checks?

That's unconstitutional and inhumane. You should be crucified and have your house burned down.

 

Now shut up and pay your fair share

[Doc]

That's unconstitutional and inhumane. You should be crucified and have your house burned down.

 

Now shut up and pay your fair share

My bad. What was I thinking?

[dayman]

 

 

Ergo, why not extend these same benefits to experienced recent older graduates with a BS(<--non negotiable) degree in engineering, business, etc.? No women's studies majors. Why not also extend this to recent MBA grads, etc., and put them in charge of overseeing the privatized efforts? (Not sure what you mean by privatized, but I'm running with it. Let me know if I'm running in the wrong direction. )

 

Hey, if we want to get "out there", then let's do it.

 

It's not a bad idea, but if you plan on using the same leadership that is currently in place, it becomes a terrible idea.

 

Couldn't agree more with the first paragraph, except for the idea that some majors are worthless. Womens Studies actually applies well to various public service groups..girls groups etc. And as for the last sentence couldn't agree more either. I guess what I'm thinking is just about many of the nonprofits around me. There's Second Harvest (I think the Lutherans do it), Wounded Warrior Project (IDK who does that but I know they don't take any government money...pretty sure they remain 100% private), a slew of Catholic operations. A lot are religious (which I am not) but they would pick up a lot of the slack I guess as well as the other non-religious operations such as Wounded Warrior project. Also, I suppose some government programs could stick around like maybe Teach For America (but now 5 years instead of 2). Perhaps some form of domestic peace corps sending some (very brave souls) to the southside of Chicago...idk...(that area seem hopeless)...other trouble spots in big cities and rural Mississippi and place like that.

 

There are a few government programs that may be capable of being saved assuming that we somehow channeled a lot more of our "better" people in there. Anyway I aim to be mainly talking about the privately run public service programs such as those run by religious institutions and other private organizations.

 

.....

 

Also...the best part of this plan (assuming some real smart people could figure out a way to make it operational) is that it would be capable of securing bipartisan support. No Dems are gona vote against more help for education and increasing efficiency of programs helping the public...and most Repubs would love the idea that these efforts are privatized and government gets out of the plethora of areas it's trying to get into (even if they continue to pump money in education...I'm not saying this idea necessarily "saves" money...but it might and hopefully we would at least be getting value for a change).

Edited April 26, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Couldn't agree more with the first paragraph, except for the idea that some majors are worthless. Womens Studies actually applies well to various public service groups..girls groups etc. And as for the last sentence couldn't agree more either. I guess what I'm thinking is just about many of the nonprofits around me. There's Second Harvest (I think the Lutherans do it), Wounded Warrior Project (IDK who does that but I know they don't take any government money...pretty sure they remain 100% private), a slew of Catholic operations. A lot are religious (which I am not) but they would pick up a lot of the slack I guess as well as the other non-religious operations such as Wounded Warrior project. Also, I suppose some government programs could stick around like maybe Teach For America (but now 5 years instead of 2). Perhaps some form of domestic peace corps sending some (very brave souls) to the southside of Chicago...idk...(that area seem hopeless)...other trouble spots in big cities and rural Mississippi and place like that.

 

There are a few government programs that may be capable of being saved assuming that we somehow channeled a lot more of our "better" people in there. Anyway I aim to be mainly talking about the privately run public service programs such as those run by religious institutions and other private organizations.

 

.....

 

Also...the best part of this plan (assuming some real smart people could figure out a way to make it operational) is that it would be capable of securing bipartisan support. No Dems are gona vote against more help for education and increasing efficiency of programs helping the public...and most Repubs would love the idea that these efforts are privatized and government gets out of the plethora of areas it's trying to get into (even if they continue to pump money in education...I'm not saying this idea necessarily "saves" money...but it might and hopefully we would at least be getting value for a change).

 

Maybe we can get the dems to go for those innovative charter schools.

[KD in CA]

Such programs do exist. I dated a nurse once who was working in the free clinic in the 'hood as a trade off for student loans. Of course, she actually had a degree that qualified her to do something useful, so the trade off is worth it. The problem is what to do with the hundreds of thousands of spoiled 22 year olds with a Poli-Sci degree and no concept of how to work or accomplish anything.

 

 

 

No Dems are gona vote against more help for education and increasing efficiency of programs helping the public.

Democrats supporting increased efficiency in public schools? That's a laugh. They are the leading blockade to the education reform movement in this country. More efficiency = less $$ for the unions.

[ieatcrayonz]

Most college pukes these days go to school to learn some useless topic like "political science" or "social work" or "accounting" or ancient languages" where it is easy to see there is no money at the back end. Now they basically want a refund from the government?

 

Let me ask you this:

 

If I went to a car dealer and there was a nice landscaping rock in the lot and I told the salesman I wanted to buy it and spend the same amount I would spend on a new luxury car, would I be able to get a refund when I found out I couldn't drive the rock off the lot?

[Doc]

So taxpayers pay-off the loans yet the banks make their money in the meantime? F that S.

[B-Large]

Most college pukes these days go to school to learn some useless topic like "political science" or "social work" or "accounting" or ancient languages" where it is easy to see there is no money at the back end. Now they basically want a refund from the government?

 

Let me ask you this:

 

If I went to a car dealer and there was a nice landscaping rock in the lot and I told the salesman I wanted to buy it and spend the same amount I would spend on a new luxury car, would I be able to get a refund when I found out I couldn't drive the rock off the lot?

 

my parents, my teachers and many other adults in my like at 17 years of age repreated told me "just get a college degree"... So I did, ran up alot of debt, and don't use that degree for anything. The difference here is this: Some students decide to suck it up, start somewhere and build a career doing something... other whine about the laons and want help- it would be unfair to bailout the Whiners, while the Strivers peck away.... if we want to be fair and insist on making sure every kids goes to College (which I think is unfounded), then we have to stick to "tough luck" hard love....

 

So taxpayers pay-off the loans yet the banks make their money in the meantime? F that S.

 

risk free lending, what bank would not support that? Heck, I would squige on myself if I was a banker and someone handed me that deal.

[dayman]

Some students decide to suck it up, start somewhere and build a career doing something... other whine about the laons and want help- it would be unfair to bailout the Whiners, while the Strivers peck away.... if we want to be fair and insist on making sure every kids goes to College (which I think is unfounded), then we have to stick to "tough luck" hard love....

 

 

What part of any student loan policy is unfair the "strivers" though? I don't really understand what you are saying? If they have loans, they can choose whether or not they would benefit from the program and take advantage...are you just saying you are against the federal government funding education in general? I mean...I just don't understand what your saying...

[3rdnlng]

What part of any student loan policy is unfair the "strivers" though? I don't really understand what you are saying? If they have loans, they can choose whether or not they would benefit from the program and take advantage...are you just saying you are against the federal government funding education in general? I mean...I just don't understand what your saying...

 

 

It figures.

[Chef Jim]

How about making welfare recipients do public work for their checks?

 

I've always said that they start at one end of a ditch that needs dug, roadside that needs cleaning and at the other end is a government employee.....with their check. Goes for unemployment checks too.

[Koko78]

Ergo, why not extend these same benefits to experienced recent older graduates with a BS(<--non negotiable) degree in engineering, business, etc.? No women's studies majors. Why not also extend this to recent MBA grads, etc., and put them in charge of overseeing the privatized efforts? (Not sure what you mean by privatized, but I'm running with it. Let me know if I'm running in the wrong direction. )

 

Way to declare war against women!

 

 

I've always said that they start at one end of a ditch that needs dug, roadside that needs cleaning and at the other end is a government employee.....with their check. Goes for unemployment checks too.

 

That government employee is going to need assistance and supervision while holding that check. The employee and his assistants will also need a union steward there to make sure that on-site supervisor is not asking them to do actual work, and that they get their CBA mandated breaks every 15 minutes.

[3rdnlng]

Way to declare war against women!

 

 

 

 

That government employee is going to need assistance and supervision while holding that check. The employee and his assistants will also need a union steward there to make sure that on-site supervisor is not asking them to do actual work, and that they get their CBA mandated breaks every 15 minutes.

 

 

I think you've nailed it. The more unemployment the more we can put people to work. I sort of feel silly for criticizing Nancy Pelosi now for saying that we need to extend unemployment benefits in order to provide jobs.

[dayman]

It figures.

 

Haha, grammar police. If you post on this board sober you have issues.

[3rdnlng]

Haha, grammar police. If you post on this board sober you have issues.

 

 

So, you're drunk at 4:25 pm on a Sunday or do you just have issues?

[dayman]

So, you're drunk at 4:25 pm on a Sunday or do you just have issues?

 

Is that an either-or?

Edited April 29, 2012 by TheNewBills