Arne on the Income-Based Repayment Program and Community Colleges

Arne took time last week to answer a couple of questions he received on his Facebook page. Daniel had a question on the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) program and the President’s recent pay-as-you-earn proposal. Secretary Duncan encouraged Daniel and others with student loans to look at switching to the current IBR program. “Depending on your income, you could save literally hundreds of dollars every single month,” he said.
 
You can get an estimate of how much you could save by visiting our IBR page, and check out our IBR calculator that will give you an idea if IBR will lower your monthly payments.

Arne also responded to Lesley who left a great comment about her success as a community college student. Lesley, who now has her doctorate, talked about the power of education and how it can change lives.

“Community colleges, I continue to believe, have this ability to transform young people’s lives, adults’ lives, [and] older people’s lives in very profound ways,” Duncan said. He also highlighted the Obama Administration’s unprecedented commitment to community colleges, including the proposed American Jobs Act that would provide $5 billion for renovation and upgrades to community colleges across the country.

Watch the video:

Click here for an alternate version of the video with an accessible player.

1 Comment

  1. During this capital “R” Great Recession, maybe because I am interacting with my normally twice-a-year family that I have noticed or been brought into other family’s arguments about “personal finance”.

    I once had a boss who said that “all people are problem solvers”. As in your job was developed as in a job description for “solving a specific problem”. As in the help desk is to “solve users needs” as in create a routine way to interact with potential customers to routinely, pleasantly solve all the questions from the written instructions about something. So the “help desk” analyst is to “interact and resolve” issues or questions brought about due to the written material or knowledge of the person requesting more information. So no matter what college major or interests/hobbies you are there to “resolve a problem” that has been recognized because there was a job description and a position created to resolve this problem. I thought this a fresh perspective that created a more “level playing field” to all those egos from the various professional backgrounds.

    I have some comments about personal finance or economic education. Many people only have high school education and do fine. Seriously, many of the wealthiest Americans are actually prestigious school drop-outs who just developed strong friendships that have done the best in all of our country. Also, I have learned that as you get each degree you become more specialized. Seriously, education can be an expensive hobby or even an addiction. My understanding is that the idea is to “fit the job description” of whatever problem you would like to daily solve or job you would like. There is both under-qualified as not fulfilling the requirements for that job description. Also, there is over-qualified as in way-too much education. Maybe, kind of like a parent dealing with a kid. The over-qualified is maybe an authority where they want just someone with energy and drive and not so technical or specialized. Statistically speaking–there are more jobs that require no post-high school education, there are more jobs for bachelors levels than for masters levels and then even less for phds. The idea is to match the job description.

    My understanding is the big thing is “flexible and trainable”. Yes, I have been told “dye your hair and only put the last ten years of your experience on your resume”. Seriously, in an interview, asking your age is an illegal question. So be youthful which is interpreted as trainable as possible. The idea is to match the job description. Be able to complete the tasks at a competency level that is required. Yes, semantics, semantics, and more semantics of the “constructively ambiguous” job description.

    I guess this is what gets me about these “broad categories of people” which I believe is stereotyping of some sort. I actually heard by a large-health insurance company by a high-level management type that they do not want “MENTAL PEOPLE”. Wow!!! I thought there was still equal opportunity laws and the right for everyone to work. No I did not hear anything about the job description and unable to complete any tasks at any competency level. I heard a “broad class of people or illness” say as NOT EMPLOYABLE. WOW!!! Even in health insurance the people who understand illnesses. WOW!!! To my knowledge everyone has the right to work. Not everyone meets the skills to get an interview. Not every job is available for every person. However, if the job requirements match the skill levels, then any person regardless of illness can apply and be considered for the job. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO WORK!!! NOT EVERY JOB IS AN OPTION FOR ALL THE VARIOUS SKILL LEVELS OF INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE THOUGH!!!!

    Okay another comment. I wish people of all types understood the “Ketchup Economic Policy” scenario. I believe this scenario tries to explain the importance of “time” in financial decisions such as opportunity costs. Okay, the ketchup economic policy is when a “problem solver” decides to make ketchup themselves opposed to buying a bottle of ketchup. Okay so this individual who is highly trained in the culinary arts decides to spend the whole day making ketchup and is amazed at their brilliance of making ketchup on their first try although it took all day. Economically at this time ketchup is about five cents for a bottle. The opportunity cost though if of cleaning the house and preparing dinner for the expected other member of the family. Okay, so does the average person think that spending the whole day making ketchup would be reasonable when ketchup is five cents a bottle? My point is that somebody actually thought spending the whole day making ketchup was economically reasonable. I guess my point is that “arguing” and “bickering” takes up time that could be used productively. Seriously, arguing or bickering by especially people who are not even remotely involved in the decision or have no piece of the pie is not good economics or personal finance. Time really is money. Arguing is a waste of time. Time arguing could be productive and used to work and make income. Arguing about something for years and years is not good personal finance when you could be productive and make money.

    Public education is one of the strengths of the United States of America.

    God Bless all that work daily for this country be educating all the “little Einsteins” that add so much in so many ways to our great society.

Comments are closed.