Students Borrow Too Much Money, So the Feds Want Taxpayers To Pay

Reason 24/7ReasonWe already know that college students run up big bills to pay for educations unlikely to deliver payoffs to match the money invested. It's no surprise that delinquency rates on those student loans are soaring. So, what's the federal government's response? Would you believe it plans to expand a program that encourages students to take on debt with promises that taxpayers will assume the burden? According to the Wall Street Journal, "The proposal, included in President Barack Obama's budget for next year, would increase the number of borrowers eligible for a program known casually as income-based repayment, which aims to help low-income workers stay current on federal student debt." As an example of what this could mean in real terms, the newspaper highlighted a student who is making use of the existing program.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Liliana Rodriguez-Marshall, a 30-year-old mother of three who graduated from Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles in December owing more than $300,000 in federal loans, plans to take advantage of the current program.

"Without it [my debt] would be unmanageable," she said.

Ms. Rodriguez-Marshall said she racked up the debt by spreading her degree over 4½ years from the normal three and taking out student loans to cover living expenses, which the government allows.

During her studies her husband was laid off and she twice had to take out emergency student loans totaling more than $30,000 to make home repairs, pay unexpected medical costs and keep up with the family's $1,000-per-month health-insurance bills, she said.

She now is applying for government jobs that pay about $55,000 a year. According to a repayment calculator created by the New American Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, Ms. Rodriguez-Marshall would pay $273 per month in her first year under the program; without it, she would owe $3,562 a month. Under the program, she would pay about $102,000 over 10 years, and the government would forgive about $639,000, which includes interest.

That's a lot of debt to run up in anticipation of a career in a field where starting salaries have been falling and averaged $60,000 in 2011 across graduates from all schools, among those lucky enough to find jobs. Frankly, it's not realistic to encourage people to take on such a debt load when the likely results don't justify the cost. Transferring the debt burden to taxpayers doesn't fix that mis-match — it just encourages people to pursue unjustifiably pricey educations at other people's expense.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Brett L||

    During her studies her husband was laid off and she twice had to take out emergency student loans totaling more than $30,000 to make home repairs, pay unexpected medical costs and keep up with the family's $1,000-per-month health-insurance bills, she said.

    What the fuck? How is this not fraud? You can't take a guaranteed student loans to make capital improvements to your residence.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    There is a portion of student loans that you can take out for living expenses.

    I took out $40k to cover my tuition through grad school. They offered me almost $70k because of their estimated cost of living and other expenses.

  • ||

    Yep. I think it's calculated by the school/government to include cost of living (I think it is bullshit that she could use it for what she did though). I also took significantly less than was offered for Law School and lived as cheaply as possible. Fuck people like her.

  • Brett L||

    Yes, but this is an emergency student loan to cover something that insurance wouldn't. $30k worth, apparently. That's not a fucking living expense, its home improvement. Wish I'd known about that. I'd have stayed in grad school and fixed up my fucking house for 2% loans.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I was explaining why it's not fraud, not why it isn't stupid.

  • ||

    Holy shit, 2%?

    I was lucky I got in when grad student loans were only 6.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Transferring the debt burden to taxpayers doesn't fix that mis-match — it just encourages people to pursue unjustifiably pricey educations at other people's expense."

    So, what is your point?

    /Prog

  • KPres||

    It's part of the plan. Drive up tuition costs, then blame "private" universities to drum up support for full nationalization. Once nationalized, you get a strictly socialist curriculum and the coup d'etat is complete.

  • sarcasmic||

    Private companies waste money on profits to rich people. Government doesn't waste money on profits, making it cheaper and more efficient in everything that it does.

    /progtard

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Education is a right!!

    /prog

  • DaveAnthony||

    Come on guys, I come to Reason so I *don't* have to see the mindless platitudes of the progtards.

  • Paul.||

    This program is a disaster, and few programs make me more pissed off than this one.

    However, I am seriously looking at advising my daughter to use it so she can get what will essentially end up being a taxpayer-funded education.

  • 0x90||

    I can see several arguments for that. One, you didn't choose this system, and wouldn't do so, if it was up to you. Two, you are forced to contribute to it, and have something coming back to you. Three, taking the available funds in the system as being zero-sum, better to have them spent on someone of your own mindset, than on someone else. Four, because helping to extend the perceived viability of an inherently unsustainable system helps nobody in the long run. And five, because fuck the people who dictated that you would be put in the position of having to make this choice, that's why.

  • some guy||

    Go for it. Your fellow americans have foisted so many ridiculous rules and taxes on you that you can, in good conscience, take advantage of bullshit like this. (So long as you actually support candidates who would eliminate this stuff).

  • Marshall Gill||

    Two wrongs definitely make a right. The fact that the government steals from you in the form of taxes certainly makes it moral for you to take as much or more. Just say "I paid in" and becoming the recipient of a wealth transfer becomes almost like not stealing.

    Just look at the basic, moral principle of Social Security. Someone stole your money and then pissed it away. What could be more moral than accepting stolen money later in "compensation" from other victims? Sure, your money was spent immediately and you are not "getting it back" but "receiving the proceeds of theft" but who cares, you didn't vote for it anyway.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There is no virtue in refusing government money. Every libertarian should operate by taking as much money from government and giving as little back as possible. Otherwise, the money just goes to people that will be engrafted into supporting the system.

    Is 'engrafted' a word? Cause it should be.

  • Marshall Gill||

    There is no virtue in refusing government money.

    But there is no such thing as "government" money. There is only money which has been taken at the point of a gun.

    Does someone stealing from you make it ok to steal from others? No. Does the government making something legal make it moral? Obviously, not. Some government stealing is very difficult to avoid, like sugar subsidies, but "public" education was a wealth transfer to which libertarians going all the way back to Bastiat disapproved.

  • entropy||

    Go for it. There comes a time to stop bailing water and make for the life boats. Exploiting the system will not cause the US to go bankrupt, that's already baked into the cake. It goes bankrupt regardless. Might as well grab what you can while you can.

  • SIV||

    Teaching your daughter to be a deadbeat?
    Let's hope Congress changes the repayment terms to something really harsh after she takes out the loans.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    She's not a deadbeat, she's a valid user of an important government program.

  • ||

    If you don't think getting as many people in hock as possible isn't the goal, you haven't been paying attention. It's just another way that they're in thrall to the government.

  • Brett L||

    True that. As someone who would have made radically different dceisions were I not chained to a mortgage, my only goal besides raising my kid is getting (and staying) the fuck out of debt. More choices, fewer levers they can use against me.

  • DJK||

    You're already in debt to the tune of $300k ($100 trillion in unfunded liabilities divided by population of US).

  • Brett L||

    But I can leave the country.

  • Virginian||

    For now.

    I fully expect to see capital controls and exit fees in my lifetime.

    This country is careening toward full socialism.

  • DJK||

    You're also liable for US taxes on income you earn abroad...

  • Brett L||

    Only if you're outside the US for less than 350 days a year.

  • DJK||

    Do you have a source for that? I've read that you pay U.S. income tax on all income earned abroad if you stay a U.S. citizen. And then there's something about a 10 year period if you renounce your citizenship. Can't find the links now, though.

  • Brett L||

    Here

    Each year, the federal government determines an amount of foreign-earned income that can be excluded from taxable income. To qualify for the exclusion, the income must be earned for services rendered. Additionally, you must prove that the foreign country is your permanent residence or that you were present in the country for more than 330 days.

    Although I've got 350 in my head. I had a hs friend who worked for Anadarko Petroleum overseas (England/Nigeria) for 10 years. He was never in the US 30 days a year. Never paid US taxes. Not sure about his tax status in the UK.

  • Fluffy||

    Obviously the solution here is to encourage widespread fraud.

    Get as many people as possible to take out as many loans as possible, and then systematically understate their income via self-employment tax avoidance and the black economy.

    Take as big a foot as you can and put it through the bottom of the bucket as hard as you can.

    Then again, there's really no reason to even attempt this as a conscious plan. Incentives being what they are, this will all happen naturally and organically. "Hey, we have a program that will hand you lots of cash, and you don't have to pay 90% of it back if you lie about your income down the line!" Good one.

  • Paul.||

    Why would you even have to lie about your income?

    Payments at 10% of your income are a pittance, so that encourages you to take out the biggest, phattest loan possible.

    I'll take out $1,000,000 in loans, but my payment is only 10% of my income, and 99.7% of the load will be forgiven after 20 years?

    Where do I sign?

  • entropy||

    This seems to tie back to what I was saying a few days ago about Phillipino maids making money in Singapore so they can attend college.

    We can throw open the border, but the Phillipino maid will not be working as a maid in order to pay for Phillipino college. This is where free market analysis of immigration flies off a cliff. When the maid comes here, the Feds will loan her $600,000.00 to get a gender studies degree.

    And what's more, this will probably fuck up her life and make it impossible for her to ever be financially independent, for which she will blaim the banks and 'capitalism'. But it serves the purpose of indirectly subsidizing the well-connected assholes who turned US colleges into PC indoctrination centers.

  • Paul.||

    The problem isn't immigration, the problem is a federal loan program that shouldn't exist for "good clean white folks either."

    Why do I care if I'm paying for my neighbor's french literature degree, or an illegal immigrants? Either way, I'm paying for someone else's education.

  • entropy||

    Oh, I agree completely. The problem isn't the immigrants, it's us. It shouldn't exist, all the same, it does exist, and that's why we can't have nice things (open borders).

    Like Epi says above, the whole point is to thrall people.

    How hard do you figure it is to thrall indigent 3rd world immigrants, most who have no idea what they're stepping into?

    It's not the immigrants themselves I fear, it's the people who are salivating at the possibility and absolutely will use them to get what they want.

  • Paul.||

    I'm not sure why, if I were an illegal immigrant I'd bother with a loan, when you can just get a grant.

    Although I do admit that taking loans out with literally no upper limit, and only having to pay 10% of your income as a monthly payment is mighty sexy.

  • GILMORE||

    We can throw open the border, but the Phillipino maid will not be working as a maid in order to pay for Phillipino college. This is where free market analysis of immigration flies off a cliff. When the maid comes here, the Feds will loan her $600,000.00 to get a gender studies degree.

    uh. What?

    not that it matters much, because your delusions are entertaining on their own, but your theoretical Philipino maid wouldn't be qualified for Federal Aid, unless they were a Permanent Resident, a certified 'political refugee', or - my favorite - a citizen of Micronesia.

    I think that has something to do with our atomic bomb-testing on them. "Sorry about the cancer! have some school."

    http://studentaid.ed.gov/eligi.....s-citizens

    But please, continue with the spluttering about immigration-dystopia.

  • entropy||

    Oh yeah, spluttering. The things I mentioned could never possibly happen, could they?

    Let's just dismiss it out of hand as crazy talk. Nothing can possibly go wrong. We have TOP MEN in charge.

  • GILMORE||

    I'm just pointing out - there are fairly limited conditions for any non-citizen getting loans.

    You think that will change? OK. Why?

  • entropy||

    Firstly, I started off saying "if we open up the borders", implying a policy change. So it's irrelevant what the current policy is. I'm talking about policy changes.

    As to WHY the government would change it that way? Well gee, that's really tough. Why did they loan this chick $300,000 she could never reasonably pay back? Same reason. They want people indentured to government aid.

  • CE||

    I think you might be fostering microaggression against Micronesians.

  • fried wylie||

    If the aggression fits...

  • KDN||

    My Filipino friends would like you to know that if you're going to correct somebody else's spelling, you should probably make sure yours is correct.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Employers are having a hard time finding technically skilled workers to fill good paying jobs. Meanwhile, the feds are making it easier to amass unsustainable debt in pursuit of jobs that don't pay as well and are not in high demand, thereby encouraging the behavior. If people were expected to shoulder the burden of their education, they would have a strong incentive to pursue high paying careers, which are those that are in demand, thus alleviating the shortfall in the labor market.

  • Rasilio||

    In my experience no they really aren't.

    There are plenty of people out there who could do the overwhelming majority of jobs just fine and lots more who could do them with a bare minimum of OJT.

    What employers are REALLY suffering from is a willingness to think out of the box and take a chance on hiring someone who might not be an absolutely perfect fit, even though such a thing does not exist.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    This.

    I don't know how many hiring managers I've known who cobble together a pipe dream list of qualifications for an open position, and then hold out for a candidate with precisely those (absurd) qualifications while passing over sometimes dozens of candidates who could do the work just fine.

    This kind of thinking is endemic in technology, and it's even worse in law. The legal job market is literally flooded with eminently qualified young attorneys, but they have JDs from downmarket law schools and lack the ideal set of internships and other resume-padding fluff, so they end up getting paid pennies for document review while firms rub brass lamps trying to conjure forth people with Ivy League credentials.

  • Briggie||

    This and a lot of employers do not want to hire the unemployed. There you have it everyone, if you are unemployed and need a job, all you need to do is already have a job. Brilliant!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I condensed my Master's into one year, lived as cheaply as possible so I didn't need to take loans for living expenses, and went into a field with good earning potential. I'm now 75% complete paying back my loans after just 2 years because I'm paying extra on it to avoid all the interest over the course of the loan. Fuck you Liliana.

  • SIV||

    Sucker. Now you can pay for Paul's daughter's education too.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Just in case she checks her name in Google and ends up here, let me add another fuck you, Liliana.

  • KPres||

    Why blame her? She did the rational thing. There's nothing wrong with taking free shit, there's only something wrong with VOTING for free shit.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If taking it is rational, why isn't voting to be able to take it rational?

  • KPres||

    I didn't say it wasn't rational.

  • 0x90||

    I just had a novel idea. What if we made a government where, instead of our rights coming from it, its rights came from us? Unless I'm wrong, that might pretty much clear up this whole "rational choice" problem.

  • KPres||

    In the meantime, while we're waiting for that to happen, you should act in your rational interest in your private life, while in the public sphere, vote on principle. Thus, take they free shit they give you, while voting and agitating against the giving of the free shit.

  • 0x90||

    Yeah, I was being a bit sarcastic there. I posted what I think is a pretty decent list of arguments further up in the thread.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THIS

  • ||

    She now is applying for government jobs that pay about $55,000 a year.

    I can't even begin to express how delighted I am to be footing the bill for her education, the education of her three fucking kids, her husband's unemployment, and her eventual salary as a government parasite.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And their home repairs.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It's like they set out to choose the worst possible example.

  • KPres||

    Granite countertops, no doubt.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Well they aren't going to be able to sell for a profit with the fake shit.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, but anyone with $300,000 in education debt is a fucking idiot for which no amount of money will provide enough education.

    Use a Student Loan Calculator FFS.

    Input in $300,000 and it tells you this:

    "It is estimated that you will need an annual salary of at least $414,289.20 to be able to afford to repay this loan."

    Do you see that, bitch? FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS

    Fuck her, and fuck the Occupiers. May they all rot in debtor's prison.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Meanwhile I need a salary that is 60% of the one I have. It's almost like I thought about this in advance.

  • Brett L||

    See. How. In the Fuck. Its not like they're loaning you money for a capital good they can repossess.

  • SIV||

    I've long argued student loan deadbeats should get "green jobs" as galérien.

  • DJK||

    What a load of shit. That's at a repayment rate of 10% of monthly salary. Would it be all that hard to pay off at a higher rate? If you go up to 15% of monthly salary, it's $275k. At 20% it would probably be manageable on a salary at a large law firm.

    They say that it would cause financial hardship to pay back at 15%. Bullshit. In grad school, while earning $2300 a month, I paid back $500 per month. That's 22%. I was still able to save and afford to live in a very expensive part of the country. It would only cause financial hardship if you can't manage money. What a minute...

  • ||

    Yeah, I thought this too when I saw the repayment rate. I put in a $100,000 debt (I don't recall offhand how much I have, so I went for a large round number), and it said I would need a salary of $138k to pay that off.

  • DJK||

    This is absolutely crazy to me. What are these people spending the other 90% of income on?

  • Rasilio||

    I think you missed...

    " mother of three "

    Paying 22% of your income in student loans as a single childless college student is one thing, attempting it as a parent with 3 children and a preexisting mortgage is impossible.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Oh, bullshit.

    We paid off student loans and a mortgage, while maxing 2 401(k)s, putting enough for almost another 2 401(k)s into after tax investments, and paying private school tuition for two kids. OK, granted, it wasn't three kids, but the private school tuition would've more than covered the expenses for a third.

    And if she couldn't fucking afford it, she shouldn't have done it.

  • Rasilio||

    and what percentage of your income was your student loan payments?

    Generally speaking a family of 5 would be paying as a percentage of gross income ~28% for housing, 15% for groceries, 5% for energy, 5% for transportation, 5% for health care, 10% on clothing/shoes, 20% in taxes and that leaves just 12% for everything else.

    Realistically you might just be able to scrape 20% together for a student loan payment for a while but you'll be living pretty much the same level of life as someone on welfare.

    Note this is not defending this womans choice to take on that level of debt, it was absolutely insane for her to do so and even crazier that she was allowed to, I am merely speaking to the possibility of her making loan payments of 20% of her pay.

  • Redmanfms||

    Realistically you might just be able to scrape 20% together for a student loan payment for a while but you'll be living pretty much the same level of life as someone on welfare.

    So?

    I lived at poverty level (literally beans-and-rice and Ramen) for 4 years so I could have my dream property free and clear.

    Choices have consequences. This bitch (Mrs. hyphenated) is arguing that she shouldn't be made to make tough decisions or face responsibility for the poor decisions she made in the past.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    and what percentage of your income was your student loan payments?

    It doesn't matter, because I was saving far, far more than 22% of my net, let alone gross.

    Generally speaking a family of 5 would be paying as a percentage of gross income ~28% for housing, 15% for groceries...

    Then they bought too much house. And using a fixed percentage for food is a bit silly.

    Realistically you might just be able to scrape 20% together for a student loan payment for a while but you'll be living pretty much the same level of life as someone on welfare.

    So? We didn't live anywhere near the lifestyle of a family with the same income but who didn't save. You make choices and you live with the consequences.

  • InlineSkate||

    Why do people not research a field they're going to spend 300k on?

    I mean it's a fucking 1 minute search for growth data on a field.

    These are the same people that when it inevitably blows up in their faces blame capitalism for not realizing their talents and demand that government fund more pork programs with the sole purpose of keeping them employed.

  • trshmnstr||

    I must also add that the 1 minute search probably would've turned up one of the many thousands of discussion threads that say you NEVER EVER pay sticker for law school. If you can't get at least partially discounted, then you're making a mistake by doing it!!! That's the info that i got when i did my research before applying to law school this spring.

  • Tman||

    My most recent ex-gf is an attorney who had over $250K in law school debt, a large portion of which she took out to "cover living expenses", which is short for "doing whatever the fuck I want to without actually getting a job while in law school".

    Without divulging too many details, she worked for the state. The state has a program that says if you work for them for 10 years straight, and pay 10% of your loan during that time, the state will pick up the remaining 90%.

    She used to bitch that this meant she had to keep her crappy job working for the state.

    I don't miss her. Why I dated an attorney in the first place is debatable, but she is a prime example of the problem.

    Now I'm dating a nurse who took three years to get fully RN'd and now lives debt free and owns her own house.

    PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, THE FUCK IS THAT?

  • InlineSkate||

    I'm currently going to school for my BSN in Nursing, and while in discussion with my loan officer about payback options. I remembered asking about how I would go about giving back money for overestimated loans while still in school.

    Seemingly puzzled by this concept she simply handed me a little pamphlet and told me the information would be somewhere in there.

  • Tman||

    HOW DARE YOU NOT TAKE MORE THAN WHAT YOU NEED!!!

    OFF WITH HIS/HER HEAD!!!

    Seriously though, I doubt that loan officer had ever had that question asked before, thus why they had no idea as to what the answer was.

  • Brett L||

    I actually didn't take loans for my one year in grad school because I couldn't figure out the answer to that question. What if I don't need $25k/year? I just need the $8k difference between my bills and the assistanceship.

  • Ted S.||

    Now I'm dating a nurse who took three years to get fully RN'd and now lives debt free and owns her own house.

    You're just trying to get a free house. :-p

  • DontShootMe||

    It's not free, I'm sure he has to perform certain services...

  • Tman||

    If I've learned anything about women in my time it's that TANSTAAFL.

    I also own my own place so we get to trade spots. What goes around comes around yo.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The state has a program that says if you work for them for 10 years straight, and pay 10% of your loan during that time, the state will pick up the remaining 90%.

    She used to bitch that this meant she had to keep her crappy job working for the state.

    I know several people who are taking advantage of programs like this. When they talk about them it makes it difficult not to yell at them.

  • Brett L||

    OTOH, I have a friend who did one of those "teach in the city, get your law school forgiven" who found out that she really enjoyed being a middle school teacher, and, having gotten herself into (and through) a pretty competitive lawschool, she's probably light years better as a teacher than what those kids usually experience.

  • Tman||

    When they talk about them it makes it difficult not to yell at them.

    Well, imagine dating one of them who would bitch that "but I don't wanna work for the state" when they were offering her a way out of her completely fucked up financial situation.

    Oh, and an update to the ex's story, she decided to go get her masters instead and take on more debt.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, duh. Why would she keep working for the man to pay off those loans for her when she can go back to school and the loan payments get deferred?

  • Tman||

    Yeah. she's got it all figured out. Until she gets her masters. Then she will be a comfy $300K in debt and have no job.

    You have no idea how glad I am that I'm done with that crazy bitch.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's a long time in the future. And then she can always just go back for a PhD to delay it some more.

  • Tman||

    Trust me, when that day comes she will be the poster child for "All that is wrong with our student loan policies" in a multitude of ways.

    She would be halfway done with the loans right now had she taken that deal. I cannot support any federal policy that lets people get away with being spoiled leeches on society. These folks need to have their degrees revoked or something if they refuse to take responsibility for their terrible decisions in life.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I'm all for STOPPING Student loans for non-vocational education (History, Theatre, Art, Latin/Black/White American Studies, etc.)

    Legacy Student loans should NOT be exempt from Bankruptcy. Allow those in default to declare chap 7. This, unfortunately, only screws over the banks and investors while leaving colleges that charged crazing amounts of money for the 'basket weaving' degree'.

    But I'm all for bailing out students that were sold a bill of goods from the college sales person (i mean guidance counselor). However, I want it to stop in the future. We can stop it by not exempting these loans to Chapter 7.

  • KPres||

    "Sold" isn't something that happens to you. The consumer has the final say, and consequently, the responsibility.

  • James C. Bennett||

    No, the guy making the loan has the responsibility not to make the foolish decision to lend money to someone who cannot possibly afford to pay it back. Academics and artists don't have creditors, they have patrons. There's a reason this is all wrapped up with government programs. In a free market, a lender who made loans at these terms would quickly find themselves out of business.

  • ||

    Southwestern Law School isn't even ranked and has a tuition of $43850 a year. Going to school there is a bad financial decision for probably even the top ranked student.

  • Brett L||

    I was making $55k as a dropout from a state school with 3/4 of a liberal arts degree when I went back to get a degree in something interesting. Of course, I could write code. So I could have been making $55k as a high school dropout.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....iness.html Elizabeth Warren is so precious.

  • CE||

    She now is applying for government jobs that pay about $55,000 a year.

    So we're paying for her either way.

  • Stephdumas||

    That reminds me of that clip I saw on Youtube via a mention on United Liberty website. http://youtu.be/Jd-7l5Zjwks

  • Khelben||

    I quit this country. I forgot, that's not legal anymore.

  • Audrey||

    Well, students borrow too much money because higher education has never been so expensive. Probably, taking out a college loan is the only way to get a college degree in case your parents are not rich and don’t have savings to finance your tuition. It seems that Obama doesn’t understand how difficult being a student is today. Young people attend college with hopes but graduate with the debt. And the job market is weak, there are not so many jobs available for recent graduates. Often youth works below their skills and use such services like http://northenloans.ca/payday-advance.html to cover their expenses. It’s necessary to fix this problem with a student loan debt, otherwise it will simply destroy the economy.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement