[docdeek]

> Ms. Tully was on an income-based repayment plan, which allows many borrowers to have their remaining debt forgiven after 20 years of making qualifying payments. She was paying $60 per month when she defaulted. This amount, to many, may seem manageable. But for her, it remained psychologically burdensome.

$60 a month for 20 years, and then the debt is forgiven doesn’t sound burdensome at all. Perhaps if she doesn’t return to the US it won’t matter, but it seems a small price to pay monthly to make returning to your home one day a whole lot less stressful.

[hamdingers]

The psychological burden comes from the endless harassment and attempted scamming from the lenders. They don't just accept your IDR and let you quietly pay $60/mo forever. It's 20 years of endless threatening calls, "urgent notices," surprise debits that must be fought. They'll delay or outright "lose" your annual recertification paperwork every year, reverting you to to some outrageously high "default" plan.

Plus the threat that a hostile administration might come in and change who qualifies for IDR at any point, which just happened and is causing a massive spike in defaults.

[JumpCrisscross]

I genuinely couldn’t figure out why the article highlighted her. If it were any other publication, I’d suspect rage baiting. But maybe HN sees something I didn’t.

[slibhb]

The NYT had a rough patch a while back but it's incredibly good nowadays. They absolutely didn't have to include the details here (like $60/month) but did because they care about the truth.

[readthenotes1]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm about the newspaper that just worried yesterday about the North American Treaty Organization.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15705545/New-York-T...