Sonnenschein is a cheap firm.

I actually listened to the Equal Justice Works online presentation the other day and this program definitely will work well for some. For those who are married, they actually calculated your income with your spouses, so you will have to pay higher monthly payments towards your debt that someone in basically the same financial position. This program is for state/fed govt and non-profits --- not limited to fed.

Pay your own debts, parasites. I paid mine.

Hey I got a novel idea, don't take on obligations that you can't afford to pay back. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Oh man, am I a sucker. I put all of my disposable biglaw income into paying down my student loan debt this year before my clerkship starts this summer.

Looks like I should have bought a new car and taken a nice trip instead.

because there are only two types of lawyers - big law and public interest.

Here's a thought: Don't go to a school you can't afford.

So, in essence, force other hard-working Americans to pay your law school debts. Welcome to Libworld, where NOTHING makes sense.

Nice! ATL can you explain details of this program - All I know is that this year I can deduct interest from my unemployment "income"

Who is John Galt?

Useful link http://www.ibrinfo.org/

I just graduated and I have Grad PLUS loans. I heard they start coming due immediately, but online it says my first payment is not due until 2011. Am I supposed to contact somebody to let them know I have graduated, or is that my school's responsibility?

8, my thoughts exactly.

11 - John Galt is dead. He died a slow, painful death that culminated in the current presidency of the Exalted One.

13, call you financial aid office. Dee-hurrr

Philip Schrag wrote an article detailing the ins and outs of the CCRAA in the Hofstra Law Review. Check it out...

http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Journals/LawReview/lrv_issues_v36n01_i03.pdf

9. You realize that your hero George W. Bush signed this law, right?
--Elie

Low income lawyers = liberal Democrats. Debt "forgiveness" = quid pro quo.

WAKE UP.

This article isn't very informative. It makes it seem like private practice attorneys can have their debt relieved with 10 years of repayment. It's 25 years for them. Only public interest attorneys (including government attorneys) get relief after 10 years of repayment.

Another catch is that the loans must be through the government's Dept. of Education not just backed by them. Eg, if you have a Stafford loan through Citi, you'll need to consolidate it with Direct Loans. Equal Justice has a nice checklist that helps guide you through the process: http://www.equaljusticeworks.org/files/studentloan_checklist_6-19.pdf

Currently if you file jointly and your spouse has income and student debt, her income is calculated into the equation but NOT her student debt. So until that changes this is kind of a screwy law.

19- the problem with you is that you can't keep score and that is why you whine so much- maybe you should join the exalted one and let him take care of you. I did and I feel great!

8, 9, 11: Ditto.

18, you do realize that this law was passed by the House with a veto-proof majority, with all present Democrats voting in favor and a majority of Republican Congressmen voting against, right? But you're right, this is not a law favored mostly by liberals. Let's blame George W. Bush.

there are social benefits to higher education that, because they can't be retained by the individual, are net positive spillovers. by providing additional incentives, like these, government brings the individual benefit more in line with the social benefit, and thus, everyone, in theory, is better off. this is called policymaking, and if you cannot understand why it makes sense, you are a fucking mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, sister loving, fool

how about a commensurate tax credit to those who made responsible financial decisions with regard to law school and consequently do not have a large debt burden?

who's paying for student loan forgiveness? hmmm.

nothing like the obamanomics of destruction!

Elie won't defend his writing in other posts, but comment on the public hand out programs and he jumps right in.

Stay classy

this program doesn't work for people in some situations. the program bases payments on your debt-to-income ratio. and it only available to your FEDERAL loans, if borrowed from or consolidated with the federal direct lending program. I maxed out my staffords every year. Since I was class of '08, PLUS loans were not an option during my first year of school and I was unaware that they were an option during my second year (thanks to a bad advice from the financial aid office and citibank). So, I have private loans for the balance of my first 2 years of law school and for a small bar study loan. I have PLUS loans for my third year. Thus, my total law school debt is split about 60% private and 40% federal.

I currently work for the federal government, making about 60K a year. My federal debt (the only debt caculated for the program) is only a little more than that. They ignore factoring in any of my private debt. Therefore, I don't qualify for any of the income-based repayment options but, because of my private loan payments, cannot afford to pay on the 10 year standard plan. The other plans are not part of the forgiveness package. I've spoken to the federal direct lending people a number of times and they've assured me that, unfortunately, I'm stuck.

Not sure how many other government/public interest lawyers there are in my situation. But if the program is going to really work, it should consider ALL education indebtedness, especially for those of us that didn't have PLUS loans as an option for all or part of our law school careeers.

If you can't afford to payback a loan, don't take out a loan. You people who want the taxpayer to pay for your law school education make me sick.

I don't understand. Why do those with student loans need bail? Can you be arrested for not paying them back on time?

I'm sure this will cause the law school deans to re-think their recent strategy of increasing tuition at least $2.5k per year.

Dear bitter people who have to pay all their loans back-

Suck It

-
Public Interest Lawyer

Can anyone tell me if networking is recommended as a tool to find employment during this recession?

I'm still pissed that unless you make less than $70,000 a year, you can't deduct your student loan interest payments from your gross income.

How about fixing that?

this board is full of the bitters. question: why so bitter, bitters? what are you so unhappy about all the time?

Correction: AGI < $70,000

So someone help me here, just to double-check my logic.

I have a kid who will be heading to law school in a few years, and I'm planning on footing the bill. So, we'd be better off if she borrows what she can, and then I agree to help her repay them, when and if she has to actually repay them. Is that right?

15,

Mr. Galt has himself to blame. The excesses of an unregulated Wall Street and the resulting economic crisis were a major factor in propelling the "Exalted One" to his presidency.

35, wait until you make more than $156k in AGI and start losing your personal exemptions and itemized deductions, which Bush somewhat fixed temporarily but Obama is bringing back in full force.

38, yes.

Ellie - this is good news because????

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I see... We're truly moving to a 'need-based' economy. Doesn't this economic system have a popular name? I don't seem to be able to remember it......

$100,000? I'd be thrilled if my debt after I graduate next May were only $100,000. I figure at about 60K per year in loans figuring the accrued interest while I've been in school I'm graduating from a tier 3 school with over $210,000 already owed. In this market I will be going to work in a suit and sleeping under a freeway when I leave the office, assuming I have an office to go to.

IBR only takes into account FEDERAL LOANS!!!

NOT PRIVATE

42 is screwed.

this passed back when Bush was in office........

29,

At least your private loans don't impose a 8.5% fixed interest rate...right? It's lower, right?

- someone paying 8.5% to fed gov

THe bitters would like nothing better than a law school system that worked like this:

1) Only those who can pay full freight get to go to the "top law schools".
2) BigLaw firms only recruit from the "top Law schools".
3) Public interest lawyers and prosecutors only come from "sub-standard public schools" with low tuition.
4) All the privileged BigLaw folks who could pay their own way through "top Law Schools" with their trust fund or Daddy's American Express card wouldn't have to hang out with the unwashed masses of "sub-standard public school" graduates who would be toiling away in public interest and the prosecutors office.

-Bite me Bitters!

8= trust fund baby

I am very upset I did not pay attention to this back when I was applying to law schools. I totally would have chosen to run up a huge bill at a different university.

47, the concept of taking out loans to pay for a top law school and then paying back those loans with one's own earnings, instead of taxpayer dollars, must have escaped you. Though if you'll be completely unemployed for an entire decade, I'll make an exception and agree to a bail-out.

Hugs and kisses,
Private sector associate who saved money (shocking idea) and paid off his loans.

Elie @ 8,

Just because someone points out the rediculous policies of , or their disappointment with, Pres Obama does not mean that they (a) support Bush or (b) would have supported Bush if he had implimented/ supported the same sort of policy.

How can you expose yourself by jumping in and making such a comment? It's people like you who somehow get into Harvard that just make me want to pull my hair out. Get off the partsian bandwagon and stop countering every attack on liberlisim with an anti Bush comment (just b/c Bush did something stupid does not mean that Obama should continue or exacerbate the problem).

And, in an effort, to draft this post in a way you might be able to wrap your brain around, I left in the typos and spelling mistakes.

49, you could not have foreseen that the Democrats would gain a majority in 2006 and push this law through as one of their first acts in office.

47, you're a loser.

1. I am at a top 10 biglaw firm
2. Paid my way through a bottom of the first tier state law school (scholarships and part-time work) after realizing that paying tuition at T-14 schools (to which I was accepted) was insanity and financially irresponsible.
3. Studied my ass off to get top-notch work opportunity
4. Have no personal connections
5. Never took a dime from any of my parents or family members since age 18

People in here who are displeased with these bailout programs are not afraid of competition or dependent on the favor of others to achieve their distinction. Rather, they cherish competition. They're ambitious. They do not rely on handouts, favors or pity to achieve their goals.

Sad is the man who believes he should be given success solely because he cannot achieve it out of merit.

41. How comes students are expected to foot the bill for an out-of-control law school tuition situation where the cost of the degree has become disassociated from the expected value of the education?

I'm all for personal responsibility. I'm not for top law schools becoming the sole purview of those with family money or those willing to become indentured servants.

Going to a school you "can't afford" isn't -- or at least shouldn't -- be the same as purchasing a car or a house you can't afford. Education is supposed to be a way to ensure a modicum of social mobility in America, not a way to hobble young people with unpayable debt obligations.
--Elie

47, what do you mean ideal world, that is the way it works, isn't it?

50, it's cute that you think a top law school somehow magically guarantees you a 160k associate job...

36 -- We are bitter for a reason. We've worked hard and been successful, and those who haven't have ganged up on us to take what we've earned, instead of working hard and trying to be successful themselves. Personal responsibility is a lost value in this country. I don't expect the government to take care of me. Others shouldn't expect the government to take care of them. Stand or fall on your own two feet.

56, it's cute that you seem to have failed reading comprehension and imagining words like "guarantee" where they don't exist.

Cue asshole comments such as:

"Pay your debts, I paid mine..."
"Don't take out loans you cannot repay..."
"Don't go to school if you cannot afford it..."

Apparently, these asshat commenters are perfect. People don't go to law school or other grad schools thinking they will take on lots of debt but get a low paying job...most people think they'll get a decent job and work themselves up from there. Unfortunately, law schools are not honest nor helpful with the job prospects for 80% of their graduates.

35 . I agree. It seems if education is sooo important according to our policymakers, then why the hell have a cap on student loan interest deduction that does not take into account the ratio of debt to income. It is kind of BS that there is pretty much no cap on the mortgage interest deduction...which pretty much means all us indebted law grads who cannot afford a mortgage subsidize all the homeowners.

38 No, if you can pay for tuition out of pocket, pay for it. Unless your daughter is dead set on public-interest law jobs for ten years at low pay

40 If you are making >156k a year, stop effin whining. Plus, you don't lose your itemized deductions, you can still deduction mortgage interest and all those other goodies, like state tax deduction. Some of your exemptions and such just get deducted at a lower rate...or something like that. Still, count yourself lucky to make >156k a year.

Elie at 41 -

Your argument concedes that only top law schools can lead to social mobility in America.

That is not true.

1. Top law school attendance helps, but is not required for professional success
2. Law is not the only, or even the best, path to upward mobility
3. Merit-based scholarships exist to level the playing field

All this program will accomplish is to further increase the cost of a legal education. It is no coincidence that the more government subsidizes higher education, the more expensive it becomes.

Elie at 41 -

Your argument concedes that only top law schools can lead to social mobility in America.

That is not true.

1. Top law school attendance helps, but is not required for professional success
2. Law is not the only, or even the best, path to upward mobility
3. Merit-based scholarships exist to level the playing field

Elie -- If in fact the cost of the degree has become disassociated from the value of the education, then one shouldn't pursue that degree. That is clearly not the case for the top law schools -- otherwise even the wealthy would not send their kids there, as the return on investment is too low. If people acted rationally, from an economic perspective, then if you are right, applications should drop, and the law schools will have to lower tuition to attract classes. If not, then perhaps there are people who believe that the cost of the degree is, in fact, worth it.

Elie,

So, Bush signed this law that has you all excited; why the photo of Obama?

Deceptive much?

Just let me declare bankruptcy. I'd gladly take that hit.

I'm obviously missing the point somewhere along the line. But, instead of finding ways to help people pay the ridiculous costs of higher education, why don't we find ways to lower the cost in the first place?

This isn't nearly as good a deal as it sounds. As a goverment attorney, I've spent a fair amount of time researching how to qualify for forgiveness, and it turns out that in order to be eligible, you must be on either a) a 10-year repayment plan (i.e. you'd pay off your loans in 10 years anyway) or b) a 128-month income sensitive repayment plan. So, at the most, the government will forgive the last 8 months of your loan, i.e. less than 10% of the value. And in the meantime, you pay way more than your monthly minimum instead of investing that money in retirement, stocks, etc.

Why is Obama the picture for this post? Ellie, please stop working for ATL. You make at least two really dumb decisions every single day here. Just go.

I am for this program. It will enable more top-knotch students (not just from top schools, I am also mean top students from lower tiered schools) to become public defenders. Public defenders are the soldiers in the battle for civil rights.

At least as far as the 25 year one goes, the debt discharged is taxable income. It's definitely something to think about before you sign up. I don't know if that applies to the 10 year public interest one too.

63. That assumes that people are acting rationally. I think there is overwhelming evidence that people do not act rationally when choosing to go to law school, or when choosing where to go to law school. The irrationality is not just based on the cost, but also bleeds into the expected return.

Applications would drop if people A) had any idea what they'd be expected to do to pay off their degree or B) Somebody killed the hobbling myth that "you can do anything with a law degree.

And don't even get me started on the vast swath of naive 1Ls who show up on campus every year thinking that they will do "good works" and "help society." I don't think your simple economic model accounts for "utterly delusional individuals."

But hey, nobody would ever build a casino if people could be expected to act in their economic best interest.
--Elie

I don't know if this can be considered a "bailout". The government is forgoing the interest income/revenue on these loans that a private bank would not forgo.

But this gets to another question. Historically, the federal and state governments HAD GIVEN MUCH MORE SUPPORT to undergraduate education. When the federal and state governments experienced huge budget deficits in the 70s, governments pulled out. Public and PRIVATE schools learned to manage on their own. The BARGAIN was the federal government would support education THROUGH LOAN PROGRAMS.

This took away any reservations among private and public schools to raise tuition. That's factor #1.

Factor #2 is that there's been a bubble in the "big-law sector", which has led to a law school professor market. Raise big law incomes, and law schools have to raise law professor salaries, and in turn raise tuition. With historic reservations about increasing tuition long gone, law schools (along with their parent universities) raised their tuition in response to increases in professor salaries and private sector big law salaries.

First tier law schools made people take out loans and gave out few scholarships. Second and lower tier schools engaged in discount pricing with scholarships to maintain their USN&WR numbers.

You guys see this chain of events right? So now that the "big-law sector" is crashing down, these sectors who relied and piggy-backed on it will have to readjust in this transition.

Have a little pity for those caught off guard guys. Loan forgiveness is one form of re-financing. Corporate America has engaged in worse forms of refinancing. Any bankruptcy lawyer can tell you that.

I love how the loser republicans on this board blame Obama for this, even though the biggest bailout in the HISTORY OF MANKIND was executed by Hank Paulson (Republican; Former Goldman Sachs CEO), George Bush and the so-called "conservatives" that cut taxes while starting two wars. They bailed out Wall Street crooks who gambled the economy down the drain. TARP, TALP and engineering the bailouts of AIG, Bear, BofA, the deal for Merrill Lynch, etc.... The republican administration created socialism in finance and spread all the losses on the American Taxpayer instead of taking it from Wall Street. Those are the guys to blame, not law students who are struggling to pay their debt. Ask John Galt and Ayn Rand about TARP and Paulson's socialization of the worlds financial markets. What a joke you republicans are. No intelligence. See Limbaugh, Rush and Palin, Sarah.

63 is posting from a fantasy world in which the rich are actually doing a cost-benefit analysis on sending their kids to expensive schools...

...as opposed to simply attempting to buy them some self-worth.

Laugh @63's trust fund.

Elie, you're a moron! People aren't forced to go to law school. It's supply and demand. Law schools will raise tuition until people stop paying it. Duh. End of discussion. And if the government bails out high tuition debt, schools are going to keep raising tuition. DON"T MESS WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!!! It never works. Look at the housing industry, if you have any questions what happens when you try to "stimulate" demand.

Elie -- 63 here. You may be right, but if so I don't have any sympathy for those folks. You act from an economically rational mode and something bad happens, you should get help. You act naively or stupidly, there should be consequences. Without those consequences, people have no incentive to act rationally. If one is "utterly delusional", why should the government step in as opposed to that person learning a valuable life lesson.

73 -- The cure for socialism is not more socialism.

There is no reason at all for the government to pay any portion of the cost of college or grad school. It's rediculous for working people to pay for other people to welch on their debts. Only in America, where liberals give away what others had to earn through hard work.

63 - you assume most people pay off their 150k in loans during the period in which the cost of their degree has not yet become disassociated from the value of their education.

Graduate in 2004/2005, three years in biglaw, layoff, still have loans. The value of the layoffee's degree is now disassociated with what they paid for it.

73, so why is Obama's picture in this post?

I'm sort of surprised that no one mentioned that this program is smoke and mirrors.

When your debts are finally forgiven that is counted as taxable income in the year they are forgiven. Since the average PI attorneys probably aren't covering the interest on their loans that money is sunk and ~50% of the forgiven balance has to be paid in a lump sum anyway in taxes.

The only difference between this and simply paying off your loans over ten years is ones cost of capital.

Furthemore, I don't think anyone out there in public interest law likes being poor. Public interest lawyers like to raise families and send their kids to good schools just like the rest of us.

Public interest lawyers have just decided the trade-offs are worthwhile because it comports with their life philosophies. They are making sacrifices. This is a subsidy to their sacrifices. It's not a subsidy for laziness.

Even for those who are not in public interest and have their loans forgiven after 25 years, the federal government has already made their money 3 times over.

People who choose to go to law school are not people who like being poor. People apply to law school not as a ticket to poverty.

Everyone forgets that individuals will have to pay taxes on the discharged debt at the end of 10 years as "income."

If you have $150,000 in debt leftover after 10 years (which is very possible if you start out with $150,000 in loan debt, since your debt keeps growing fairly quickly under this plan), you would still owe quite a chuck of change to the IRS.

73,

Many "republicans" agree that the former administration screwed up. This, however, does not diminish the fact that the current administration is taking things over the cliff. Just b/c GWB spent too much and engaged in hapless bailouts does not mean that quadrupling the budget, ramping up spending, and redistributing wealth make what the current administartion is doing correct/ any better. Two wrongs don't make a right. The thing you and many others fail to see is that its not a Bush v Obama thing its a right v wrong thing -- philisophically speaking -- (both can be wrong, but that doesn't make the conservitive outcry unintelligent like you suggest). You sound like the sort of jackass who will support anything a politician with a "d" next to this/her name says/ does. I feel sorry for you, and quite frankly you are what scares level headed Americans. I hope you enjoy your trolley rides to the land of make believe.

So if I promise to make $40K/year for 10 years as a lawyer, the government will cancel my remaining $20K in loans?

Awesome! Sounds like a good deal.

Somewhere, an MBA is laughing so hard (s)he's crying.

81 & 83: i think the tax problem is being addressed as well. at least that's what my law school's finaid people said.

Touche, 64.

"We are all socialists now."

85, all you have to do is _report_ only $40k a year of income. It's a great deal if you have a conveniently selective memory.

Your friends,
Charlie Rangel, Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle...

This has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives, or Bush and Obama, or whatever other BS partisan divide somebody can come up with.

To those of us (like me) who went to a law school we could afford, this plan is offensive. You can't afford a certain law school? Don't go to it. It's absurd to even suggest that you can only get a quality education at schools the average person can't afford to attend. If you got into a super-expensive law school then, pretty much by definition, you could have gotten into your perfectly-adequate subsidized state school as well.

When you borrow money you assume an obligation to pay it back. So pay it back. That's something called personal responsibility and having it will help you down the line. Just because you borrowed that money in the hopes it would land you a lucrative law firm job, doesn't necessarily entitle you to that job. Otherwise nobody wouold ever lose money on an investment.

This has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives, or Bush and Obama, or whatever other BS partisan divide somebody can come up with.

To those of us (like me) who went to a law school we could afford, this plan is offensive. You can't afford a certain law school? Don't go to it. It's absurd to even suggest that you can only get a quality education at schools the average person can't afford to attend. If you got into a super-expensive law school then, pretty much by definition, you could have gotten into your perfectly-adequate subsidized state school as well.

When you borrow money you assume an obligation to pay it back. So pay it back. That's something called personal responsibility and having it will help you down the line. Just because you borrowed that money in the hopes it would land you a lucrative law firm job, doesn't necessarily entitle you to that job. Otherwise nobody wouold ever lose money on an investment.

Good idea. I'd hate for the market to sending off signals that there are too many licensed attorneys.

Then there'd be yet another painful correction. Better to inflate the bubble. Keep subsidizing!!!

Let's be honest. All of you who are saying you went to a law school you could afford actually went to a law school you could get into.

67: THANK YOU. I've had multiple friends claim what you say is not the case, but each time I've called DLS with questions, I've come to the same conclusion.

In essence, this program doesn't do jack shit. Can someone PLEASE clarify this in the event that 67 and I are wrong?

All this garbage bill will do is give law schools another reason to raise tuition, hitting hardest the poor suckers who end up in private practice but not in biglaw.

Now law schools can say to prospective students," It's no big deal for us to raise tuition by 10% (again), since 1) you will be able to increase your loan amounts and 2) if you decide to go into "public interest" work, Uncle Sam will help you on the backend with your loans."

SOMEONE's going to pay for the unpaid loans.

And that would be the middle class taxpayer.

Socialist policies will destroy this country... and already are beginning to do so.

"To those of us (like me) who went to a law school we could afford, this plan is offensive."

Translation: my parents paid for law school.

It must really be inconceivable for liberals that someone could pay for a decent law school not with their parents' money, but with their own money earned before and after law school.

Um, you people do realize this isn't limited to law school loans, right? It's ALL federal loans for education expenses.

Nobody forced anyone to take out $200k in loans. A basic principal of life is if it's too expensive, it's probably not a good idea to do it.

I have more sympathy for people who were defrauded by mortgage companies and banks circa 2005. At least SOME of the mortgage blame rests on the institutions that were goading average people into taking out huge sub-primes and Alt-A's.

As for law school, taking the LSATs, writing applications, sending in undergrad transcripts, and figuring out what to do for (presumably) the rest of your life is not an overnight decision. Nobody turned their heads the other way to get you to go to law school. Nobody forced these students to take out huge loans.

Plenty of people I know have said the following:

"I passed up a T14 school and attended a T50 on full/partial scholarship."

"I went to a lower-ranked in-state public school instead of a higher-ranked private school."

"I chose not to go to law school because debt + opportunity cost of 3 years not working = too expensive."

"I chose not to go to a Tier-3 law school because it was too expensive and I didn't get in anywhere better."

I commend these people and they will go far in life having made such rational decisions.

The problem brought up by 38 and 53 is the exact reason why programs like this will never work and why socialism in general and positive rights will always fail. The only thing that keeps humans from falling off the cliff with respect to spending, physical exertion, financial risk, and ambition is stress and pain. We decide not to engage in certain conduct because of the risk involved and the potential that we will not be able to handle the adverse consequences. Take away the consequences and humans don't just stay constant. The make dumber and riskier decision commensurate with the level of support or safety net provided by the government. For all those that are at least somewhat financially savvy, does a program like this not just change the risk profile of a law school decision?

good. now all we gotta do is get private loans included in IBR...then there is no reason to complain.

good. now all we gotta do is get private loans included in IBR...then there is no reason to complain.

98- this is abovethelaw, not belowtheudder. If it were the latter, perhaps we could engage in a discourse about the effects of this bill incentivizing Future Farmers of America to pursue a B.S. in Animal Sciences from Kansas State.

Ellie you should look into the letters people are getting from their schools about how economic hardship deferrals have been canceled.... this will impact alot more of the class of 2009 than the program you are talking about:

there is more info on it here: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/finaid/deferments.html

89, et al: you're a jackass. the premise of your assertion is that those taking advantage of this forgiveness program "borrowed that money in the hopes it would land [them] a lucrative law firm job," when in fact many people (SHOCKING!!!) go to school with the intent to perform in public interest or as a public servant. The program was created almost 2 years ago as a financial INCENTIVE for students to forgo fat paychecks to instead commit to public service.

Suck it.

- (EMPLOYED!!!) Gov't attorney

Comment removed by moderator.

I turned down a T5 to go to a T20 with a full scholarship. I don't regret my decision and it still got me where I wanted to be, but it's frustrating to see people who made the opposite decision be rewarded...

makes me think of this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31325093/ns/business-personal_finance//

should you just cancel all of her credit card debt after X number of years because she was thoughtful enough to get $60k in debt rather than live within her means?

SAWHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEET!

I am stoked. I really wanted that new (modest) car.

I turned down a T5 to go to a T20 with a full scholarship. I don't regret my decision and it still got me where I wanted to be, but it's frustrating to see people who made the opposite decision be rewarded...

makes me think of this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31325093/ns/business-personal_finance//

should you just cancel all of her credit card debt after X number of years because she was thoughtful enough to get $60k in debt rather than live within her means?

the 10 year forgiveness is NOT taxable income (that's for all the public interest/government workers).

the 25 year forgiveness (anyone not in the "eligible employment") IS taxable.

105, that's why this program only applies to law students who started law school in 2006 or later and graduated in 2009 or later, right?

The problem is that Republicans don't acknowledge that there is a significant public benefit to having well educated individuals who really want to work in public interest law or the prosecutor's office. These same individuals (before this legislation) were facing crippling debt-loads that left them with no reasonable choice but to succumb to the indentured servitude of BigLaw in order to have any hope of paying their debts.

Now, these same people have a meaningful choice and our public interest organizations and the prosecutors offices have a wider applicant pool.

I do however, disagree with the cap on student loan interest deductions.

83- Know anything about controversey work with the IRS? Even if the ENTIRE tax is paid, I'd rather front a quater to a third in tax revenue versus the 150k balance with interest, wouldn't you?

99- As a New York State resident from a blue collar family with no legal connections, should I chose SUNY- Albany, SUNY-Buffalo or Columbia in order to advance my career?

Anectodal evidence from "plenty of people" is weak.

Those who went to law schools they could afford will now (more than ever) be competing for jobs with those who went to law schools they couldn't afford. I wonder who will get the job. Investing in education, even (especially) very expensive education, is still one of the securest investments you can make.

111:

http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2007/lnpublic101507.html

Please re-read and check back in when you know what you're talking about.

112, that might be a problem if there are significant numbers of public interest law positions not being filled by qualified individuals. When that happens, then a subsidy can arguably be justified to fill those positions. I assure you that is not the case right now and that the applicant pool is very deep and there is no need for taxpayers to spend ~$50k per slot to widen it. The subsidy is a windfall to people who take those positions that would have been filled by that person or someone else similarly qualified anyway.
The shortage of nurses or rural doctors warrants a subsidy, not lawyers at the ACLU or Manhattan DA's office.

You sound like those whining federal judges who complain about how they're so underpaid. Hey judge, if your job is so terrible, why don't you quit and I will gladly take it over for you.

63 - you really think rich parents will perform a return-on-investment assessment regarding their kid's graduation schooling? it seems the only type that would do this is the middle class parent with little money to contribute to the graduate education but with plenty of regard for the child over-burdening themselves with debt.

The rich kid's parents are probably a bit closer to, "Go wherever the fuck you want to - just don't pick a name that embarrasses the family."

Why should ANYONE get loan forgiveness, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers? I am a Gen-Xer who paid off my student loans after five years with MY OWN INCOME(not Mommy and Daddy's money, like these Gen-Y trust fund babies who can't do anything for themselves) because instead of spending my income on luxuries, I actually lived within my means and channeled my earnings into paying off my debts rather than expecting taxpayers to finance my education. I know it's a novel concept for the self-entitled Gen-Yers to grasp that they should actually be responsible for paying for their own education and actions. There are no guarantees in life, you're not special and life isn't fair. I took the same risks as these new graduates when I took out student loans and I worked at a minimum wage job when I graduated from college in 1992 because I, too, graduated in a recession. This "loan forgiveness" program just penalizes responsible, fiscally wise individuals and rewards careless, irresponsible sloths who expect everyone else to clean up their messes for them. Stop being a bunch of whiny, self-entitled brats and take responsibility for your own actions.

I won't know what to think about this until Partner Emeritus and Michael Ray Richardson weigh in.

Great!!! So once again those of us who worked hard and spent our law school careers in the library get to subsidize all the slackers who graduated in the bottom of the class.

And don't give me that garbage about well qualified people wanting to do public interest and government work (with the obvious exception of clerkships). Every top graduate at my school went into the private sector or academia. The people who went to public interest were people who "discovered" that they were too moral and self-righteous to work for Big Law after their first year grades turned out to be poor.

89 - Suny-Buffalo is not "perfectly adequate" vis-a-vis CLS, you stupid fuck.

Really #38? You have $150k laying around that you plan to plunk out on your kid over a short three-year time frame? Come on.

This is 90 again. I went to a large, private law school in DC located just blocks from the Capitol, Union Station and Dubliners. It was not the highest-ranked school I got into and certainly was not the cheapest, not even close. When I graduated I had student loans that were roughly 130% of my incoming first-year biglaw salary. I paid those loans off in 6 years with my own money that I earned from my job that I got from going to law school.

If this program encourages people to go into public service in the first place then that's fine with me. But we're now getting very far afield from that. If it's being used -- as apparently it now will be -- by recent grads to try to shirk their debt obligations because their speculative investment in a law school degree didn't pay off the way they'd hoped, then what you have is the government subsidizing private investment losses. I have a big problem with that, as should anyone who understands what personal responsbility is.

114- If you could get into Columbia, you could probably get a good scholarship at a T30 school.

Or, Columbia, a T5 school, is probably a good enough school to secure a market-paying job for a few years, even if you are at the bottom of your class. So the investment is probably worth it.

Or, an alternative career may be a better decision in general (MBA = 2 years).

Or, you could get a free ride to SUNY-Albany and be debt free.

Or, you could go to a SUNY for 1L year and transfer to Columbia. That way, you only take out 2 years of expensive loans.

These are the questions you should be asking. It is your exact simple-minded thinking that has put so many people like you in a bad position.

Your welcome for the advice.

Here's a question. If all of us greedy bastards who wanted to work to advance our own lives and the lives of our families are finally crushed out of the market by punitive taxation, who is going to subsidize the lifestyle of pretentious government workers?

127, you're part of the "rich" as a couple making over $125k/year each so we'll just tax you some more.

Seriously 122, SUNY-Buffalo or Columbia? Those are your only two options?? No fucking chance, unless you're the biggest fucktard on the planet.

yeah this website isn't very good anymore.

Dear #84, and the rest of you idiot republicans who are now trying to distance yourselves from Bush's policies. The "two wrongs don't make a right" argument is complete and utter bullsh*t. Take some responsibility for the complete mess that your party created under Bush, Cheney, and a republican-controlled house. You can't now distance yourself from your parties' destruction of the economy in 8 years. Obama is running a huge deficit because he has to clean up the mess that you created. Obama is spending a bunch of cash to rescue the financial meltdown that republicans created. Did Obama force the banks to be bailed out? NO. Paulson and Bush did. even though some of the banks DIDN'T EVEN WANT THE MONEY. Bush and Cheney executed precisely what the republican philosophy has been for years. Lower you taxes at any cost (two huge insane tax cuts that we could not afford, Cheney broke the tie of 50-50 in the senate on the second cut by using a very cunning little trick to circumvent congress). Impose your foreign military might on the rest of the world without provocation so you can make money for Halliburton, big Oil, and the republican military-industrial complex. The problem is not that Bush and Cheney screwed up the republican philosophy. The problem is that they were TOO GOOD AT IT. They exposed your "philosophy" as a fraud. free markets, no regulation, let the markets work everything out----ooooops. unless and until the markets destroy themselves through greed----then have the ex CEO of Goldman Sachs take our tax dollars and create socialism of the banks. What a complete load of shit. The republican philosophy is a sham and you can't now run from Bush and Cheney's decisions now that you ADMIT that they were wrong. Stand up like a man and take your medicine and admit that your philosophy is garbage. Ayn Rand and John Galt can suck it. What they don't realize is that if you let the markets run wild, you get cheaters, hucksters, and fraudsters destroying the world.

Welcome to republican economic philosophy, circa 2000-2008. That philosophy is now dead. Good riddance.

when everyone, banks, car companies, even "educated" lawyers are asking for handouts as if it were no big deal, then we just one STEP CLOSER TO COMMUNISM.

Don't be a lawyer. Do something else to pay off your debt, but don't become a commie.

130, I guess it is not possible for someone to question some Obama policies without being a hardcore Republican party member capable of justifying everything in the last 8 years. You must be a blast at parties.

I will echo 67's analysis. This is smoke and mirrors. Most loans have a ten-year period anyway. And under the new law you aren't eligible for forgiveness if you extend that period. It's a wash.

We need self-defeating laws like this to fool companies into thinking they are being bailed out.

125- So taking out loans to go to Columbia is more risky than graduating from SUNY-Albany in this legal hiring market?

99 - either you are lying about knowing such people, or they are lying. Yes, a few people do this, but 'plenty'? c'mon. Also, even you didn't believe your message in 2006 - so quit with the monday morning quarterbacking.

I don't have a problem paying my loans back (190k). I have a problem with having my salary cut and taxes hiked to make loan repayment possible only with a completely austere lifestyle. Once (if) I start working, I will be apparently making too much money to deduct the student loan interest from my taxes (even if I could it would be capped at 2k per year), yet I watch my propertied friends (who got their downpayments from their parents) deduct full interest from their mortgages, independent of how much they make. MAKE STUDENT LOAN INTEREST PAYMENTS FULLY DEDUCTIBLE

128 - I was making the point that many states don't have adequate state law school alternatives in response to the idiot who implied that there were

136, it is possible for many law students to go to law schools in states other than the one they've been living in. Some of those schools might even offer merit scholarships, or in-state tuition if you establish a foothold first.

134 -- Suny-Albany does not have a law school. Albany law is a school of Union College, a private school (strangely enough).

131 apparently you have no fucking clue what exactly communism is...dude, stop regurgitating Rush and Fox News. Here is a helpful clue, next time you want to make some snide remark with "communism" or even "socialism" inserted in your sentence, at a minimum, go to wikipedia and look those two words ups before posting so you don't keep perpetuating ignorant republicans who are fixated on hating anything Obama does, just because you have nothing else to do.

"communism"...tsk, tsk, what an idiot you are.

"Ayn Rand and John Galt can suck it. What they don't realize is that if you let the markets run wild, you get cheaters, hucksters, and fraudsters destroying the world."

LOL. well said.

130: There really is no talking sense to people like you. You have bought the liberal hate, lies, and propaganda hook, line, and sinker. But, no matter. Darwinism is the cure for your ilk. GOOD LUCK, MORON. :-)

130, 140 --

How is that different than under a central-control socialist regime? Oh yeah, not only do you get "cheaters, hucksters, and fraudsters destroying the world" [in the name of the public good], but you also lose all incentive for production and hard work.

So you get to live in a shitty, stagnant world filled with "cheaters, hucksters, and fraudsters" instead of a growing and developing one.

Liberals sure are smelling desperate these days. Total control, and it's all falling apart. And their "Blame it all on Bush" mantra isn't cutting it anymore.

Buh-bye, leftards. We hardly knew ya.

142, lies, all lies. There are never any cheaters, hucksters, and fraudsters in the public sector or among the government ranks.

I went to a T1 school, graduated middle of my class, took the only job offer I got, am making less than $60k in the private sector in Chicago (small firm). Many of my classmates (also in the middle of the class) are still looking for jobs. I'm having a hard time scraping up sympathy for the poor souls struggling to make their loan payments on their $100k salaries. Were better living standards dangled in front of us? Yes. Did we hope for more job options after we put the time and effort into school? Yes. Does anyone owe us anything? Not that I can figure.

Cheater: e.g., Geithner.
Huckster: e.g., Gore.
Fraudster: e.g., Blagajovich.

And then there's Obama, the biggest CheaterHucksterFraudster of them all.

Just think, most of the idiot liberal posters here were in high school when Bush was elected in 2000. They are sad, miserable products of years of liberal brainwashing by teachers, the media, and hollywood. See Darwinism.

121-You are stupid. Every lawyer with my public interest organization graduated from Harvard, Yale, or NYU. They are smarter than you.

121-You are stupid. Every lawyer with my public interest organization graduated from Harvard, Yale, or NYU. They are smarter than you.

Out of curiousity, what is a typical monthly loan payment (30yr) for typical private school debt? Over 1K?

-67 and 93, what about the IRB income based repayment option. It sounds good.

ELIE!!! PLZ confirm that the program requires one to set a repayment period of 10 yrs, and because of this, it has the effect of not forgiving any loans at all!

THIS LEGISLATION IS A SHAM!

Elie @ 54: "How comes (sic) students are expected to foot the bill for an out-of-control law school tuition situation ... ?"

How about because they ran up the bill in the first place? But I'm totally with you when it comes to how it is that I'm expected to foot the bill for the out-of-control wine prices at the restaurants I frequent.

Elie @ 71: "That assumes that people are acting rationally."

Well, no need to act "rationally" when incurring great debt is rewarded by receiving great forgiveness. But, again, I'm totally with you on how those college-educated 20-somethings are taken advantage of by the system. It's disgusting the way law school deans prey on the weakest elements of society.

Hey 84/132, no you can't. I 'm nowhere near as crazy as crazy as 130, but we can't ignore the truth about Republican spending and policy. They f-up badly these past 8 years.

110- Thank you. There's a lot of people making statements about taxable income as if they're facts. I guess they're not too bright and can't read the statute and its rules.

67, 93, 133- I'm not sure how you've determined that this is smoke and mirrors. Sure, it won't help everyone, especially those who could pay off their loans in 10 years. However, if you only make $50-60K per year and have more than $100K in federal loans, then you can potentially have more than $60K forgiven. You your explanations for why this is misleading are not clear.

Obama has blown it, big time, and all sane Democrats know it. What a shame. However, quite predictable.

Okay, here's an example for those who say this legislation is a sham.

Student has takes out $150K in federal loans, no private loans, in anticipation of this program.

Student takes a government or non-profit job after law school. Let's say federal government where the salary increases each year to a greater degree.

First year salary at federal agency of $60K. Using the IBR approach, the annual payment is approximately $6,750. Let's say by year 5 this person is at GS-14 and earning near $100K, so the annual payment has increased to approximately $12,750. Over ten years, that person will pay less than $120K in loans.

If that person paid back the entire $150K over ten years at a rate of at least 5.5% (this includes Grad Plus loans at 8.5 and Stafford at a lower rate), the total payout over ten years would be $234,500K. That's almost $120K forgiven. Where's the sham?

154, my understanding is that "extended" payment plans disqualify you for the forgiveness after 10 years of payments. Assuming that your loan term is ten years (which I believe most federal loans are), this means you will never be eligible for forgiveness.

Explain how anyone could "potentially have more than $60K forgiven" under this law.

157-

See my post at 156. You're right that this does not apply to extended payment plans. However, the IBR may allow you to make monthly payments that are even lower than you would pay under a 20-25 year plan. Of course, this depends on your income and loan amounts. Furthermore, as you're aware, you pay even more interest over 20-25 years as opposed to 10 without the forgiveness program.

157- READ THIS

http://www.illinoisprobono.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_Content&contentID=6427

156 here-

I made a miscalculation for the total payoff under that scenario. It's actually closer to $195K, not $234K. However, that's still at least $75K forgiven.

Do we not value an education as highly as owning a house? THEN MAKE STUDENT LOAN INTEREST PAYMENTS FULLY DEDUCTIBLE, IRRESPECTIVE OF INCOME LEVELS.

The post reads as though the income-based repayment plan is separate from the 10-year forgiveness plan. The solution to the confusion here is that you can participate in both programs, thus making reduced, income-based monthly payments for ten years. Then you're done.

Ahm... people who are bottom in law school (at non-T15 and lower tier law schools) go to Insurance Defense, Personal Injury, and Municipal/State Government. Subsidizing these law student/laywers is not a bad thing.

Public interest lawyers tend to range from people who do better (not necessarily top of class, but middle of the pack) and people who do really well. Subsidizing these lawyers is a good thing.

Government subsidizes alot of things. If your argument is against ALL subsidies, there's not much to talk about. We have irreconcilable differences. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best, when he said how he liked paying taxes because he's paying for civilization. There will always have to be some income-redistribution and some funding of government to achieve goals that have no market solutions. We can debate which goals are worthwhile, but you can say carte blanche that ALL subsidies are bad.

Therefore, we can definitely debate what items you want to subsidize or not. Or what goals are better achieved with policies other than subsidies.

Those that argue that we are practicing socialism or communism, go start your own country. I'd like to see what you can do, if you think you can do better than USA.

163 here, yeah even with the USA having all its problems, I'd take it over alot of places.

163 here. Oops I meant to say "There will always have to be some income-redistribution and some funding of government to achieve goals that have no market solutions. We can debate which goals are worthwhile, but you can NOT say carte blanche that ALL subsidies are bad."

142: You make probably the only good point of all the Obama-bashers on this board. And you are right, extremes at either end of the spectrum end up in the same place. That's why we need moderate, regulated, capitalism. Not "free markets" not socialism. There is a healthy middle ground. And Obama is trying to find it. The fact that some of these policies seem super left-wing to republicans is only because we've been far right for so damn long. Anything even remotely close to the center trying to makes things a little more equal seems like a big change because Bush and Cheney were so transparently moving to the extreme right. Tax cuts for the rich, started two expensive wars, busted the budget, erased the surplus, cut back regulation, cut back environmental policies, let the banks, oil companies and corporate america run wild and trample on the Constitution and the majority of the country of middle class folks. the republican "philosophy" espoused by Reagan was a total sham. it was propoganda designed to make idiot poor people in the south (see Atwater, Lee) think that it meant they had freedom from government. In reality, it meant that the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. There is not a single argument that can be made to counter the following undisputable fact:

In 2001, for the first time in 40 years, the Republican party had control of both the White House and both chambers of Congress. And look what happened. Just take a gander at where we are now. I REST MY CASE.

To everyone bitching about this program: the actual financial impact will be little because so few people will qualifiy. I.e. if someone works in small law they derive no benefit. If someone works in public interest for 10 years they derive no benefit. If someone has private loans they derive no benefit. The people you are disparaging on this board will likely see no advantage from this program whatsoever because even if they spend their entire careers in public interest they likely took out private loans because they can be much cheaper than the 8.5% for PLUS loans. If anything this policy will encourage later law school classes to gamble and take high interest PLUS loans thinking they may do public interest, then 5 years after graduation when they have kids and want to make actual money they get a private sector job and therefore derive zero benefit from the program.

All this program provides is a SHITTY LRAP- it's really not that big of a deal whether you are pro or con

here's hoping the government muscles private lenders into offering fixed-rate, income-based repayment under essentially the same terms as those enacted under CCRA.

163 here. Not enough proof-reading, I guess that weakens my argument.

But I meant to say "people who are bottom in law school (at non-T15 and lower tier law schools) go to Insurance Defense, Personal Injury, and Municipal/State Government. Subsidizing these law student/lawyers IS a bad thing."

"If someone works in public interest for 9 years they derive no benefit."
-167

167-

If you assume that people will leave the government to make more money in the private sector, then you're ignorant of the economics of the profession. The average salary for a lawyer in private practice is around $100K. The average salary for lawyers in the federal government, the largest employer of public interest attorneys, is closer to $120K. There are many JDs applying for non-attorney positions in the federal government because the pay is better than practicing law in the private sector and the hours are better. All government jobs apply here, not just attorney positions. Therefore, there will be a lot more people that will take advantage of this than you realize.

it only works if you make like $30K. Go check out the calculator on the dept of education website. If you make ~80K the income sensitive payment is jacked up to a ten year amortization.

Read the fine print and do the math, it's a hollow gesture.

171 before making the broad statement that someone is ignorant of the economics in the profession why don't you talk to your local PD or DA and ask them if they have any trouble retaining quality people 3-5 years out of law school. Thanks.

174-

I've clerked at the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, and they don't have difficulty retaining good people. I've heard people who haven't worked there make that claim that you make, but most of the people that work there have spent their entire careers there. Sure, some people leave, but the SAO's retention rate is fairly high. Most of those who stay are great litigators and they're dedicated to their jobs.

The average salary for all lawyers in Chicago/Cook County is close to $100K. That includes experienced attorneys. Those who stick around at the Cook County SAO earn that much after about 12-15 years. If they left, they may not earn much more. Furthermore, the market here is saturated. Therefore, it would be more beneficial for someone to stay in the SAO and get loan forgiveness than attempt to move to the private sector.

Maybe you should get a clue and do your research. You must be a law student.

171

I know how hard it is for young people these days and I want to help. Why just ask my grandson Spalding. He and I are regular pals. Are you my pal, Mr. Scholarship Winner?

You know Judge, my Dad....never liked you.

Hey,....beautiful

@25

I guess my mouth breathing has resulted in acute hypoxia which prevents my brain from following your logic. But I think I’ll just have take your word for it that obtaining a loan with the false pretence of paying it back is beneficial to society and wreaks absolutely no havoc on the underlying concept of debt obligation. I will also have to take you at your word that using my tax dollars (that do not see the benefit of any school loan deductions) to offset the costs of the altruistic law school grad, who despite being bogged down in massive debt somehow manages to get up each day put his pants on and save the world, is congruent with some notion of fairness. Come to think about it, for just the price of a daily cup of coffee, we can all make a difference in a young lawyer’s life; I will look forward to getting personally written letters and a photo in the mail each month.

Now if only the Dems could get the ball rolling on this nationalized health care thing so I can get these scrapes on my knuckles taken care of, that would be great.

Apparently it does, bitters. Here's another point for you to consider - separate from my original point, but important nonetheless: allowing for some amount of loan forgiveness, modification, bankruptcy, etc. is actually socially useful as well, because it encourages a level of risk-taking and entrepreneurial spirit that wouldn't otherwise exist. Consider, as an example, what types of risks business organizations would be willing to take if they didn't enjoy the benefits of limited liability (pay your debts, libtards!), or if they remained forever on the hook for unpayable debts that remain when the plan doesn't work (socialism! wait, is it communism! capitalism!). Ah well, but the peasant doesn't regard the capitalists debts as equivalent to the debts of his neighbors. No, the peasant idealizes the capitalist as a better (bitter) version of himself and will bend himself over, ass-backward (grab them ankles, peasant) to forgive those sins.

Anyway, forget about your knuckles: you're gonna need to learn to start breathing through your nose.

@180

Perhaps, in an economic environment in which the moral hazard has not already been shot to sh*t, your theory could hold water, but me thinks promoting personal responsibility has a far greater reach in benefiting society. Forgiving a loan is one thing, but letting someone know their loan will be forgiven before they even take it out is nothing more than charity, and I think others in far dire a strait are more deserving of charity, unless of course you feel these destitute lawyers are incapable of helping themselves (by which would be an admission their overpriced fancy learn’n has failed them).
179

LMAO! Above the Law just realized this today? This has been all over the news at Equal Justice Works' website and in law schools for 2 years.

I would support one's ability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy after a term of ten years or such.

I am a recent law grad working in public interest at $40K. I am also recently married, and we need my salary just to cover my monthly loan payment. I called to talk to the fed govt about this program and was told that without a doubt that if my husband and I filed our income taxes separately, I would qualify for IBR. I consolidated my federal loans and went through the entire process, only to find out that the three people who told me we should file separately were wrong. It does not matter whether we file jointly or separately, my husband's income is considered. Instead of REDUCING my monthly payment, IBR has more than DOUBLED my payment. Thanks US Gov't!