Home

How can I fix my credit with Sallie Mae (Student loan Account)?

May 20, 2886 by Sunkist Patel | Posted in Credit

Sallie Mae Student Loan (BA & MBA). I missed 3 payments in 2004. All 3 praise agencies shows 120 days late for 17 Sallie Mae accounts I had. My FICO is about 520. They helped me go to form, but hurting me to get a job and repay the loan.

---

You can consolidate the items, but with Sallie Mae, it will in all probability screw you over more than help.

It did with me anyways.

The late payments will stay on your record for 7 years.

---

move my sallie mae student loan to somewhere else.?

Apr 05, 2008 by jd91504 | Posted in Financial Aid

I'm having quandary with Sallie Mae and their customer service. They are never updated and continously making errors and just makes me nervy because of their lack of knowledge. Where can I move my sallie mae student loan to? All the payment so far has

---

If these loans are federal loans that were bought by Sallie Mae, you unqualifiedly can't "move" them. You would have to take out another loan at a different company... and the only program I can think you would be eligible to get would be a

---

Sad Saga of Sallie Mae's Servicing Skills Pt1

www.consumerwarningnetwork.com At a heyday when Sallie Mae, the nation's largest furtively student loan provider, is trying to convince our ...

Education Secretary Arne Duncan: Banks vs. Students

Wednesday, February 10, 2010; A15

Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Tuesday urged the Senate to overhaul student lending, asserting that the banking industry has had "a free ride from taxpayers for too long" and that executives with lending giant Sallie Mae have enriched themselves as borrowers rack up college debt.

"Working Americans pay while bankers get rich," Duncan said in a prepared statement. "Sallie Mae executives have paid themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in the last decade while teachers, nurses, and scientists -- the backbone of the new economy -- face crushing debt because of runaway college tuition costs."

Duncan's unusually pointed critique marked an escalation in the student loan debate as the Obama administration seeks to end a program that uses private lenders as middlemen for federally backed loans. The tone of the comments echoed President Obama's recent populist rhetoric about the need to expand regulation of Wall Street.

In September, the Democratic-led House passed a bill, over strong industry and Republican opposition, that would mandate a switch to direct government lending. It would steer an estimated $80 billion in savings over the next decade to grants for needy students and other education initiatives. But the bill has stalled in the Senate as the Democratic majority seeks to circumvent a virtually certain Republican filibuster.

Opponents depict the bill as a government takeover that would squelch competition, diminish services to students and cost jobs. Sallie Mae, based in Reston, and other industry players are pushing an alternative that they say also would end government subsidies but preserve a role for private lenders in originating student loans.

John F. Remondi, Sallie Mae's chief financial officer, said the lender shares Obama's reform goals but wants to "enhance" the House-passed bill. Asked about Duncan's comments, Remondi said: "Look, we don't think name-calling helps in this process. The design of the future of this program should be debated fairly and openly."

Sallie Mae estimates that its workforce would be cut from 8,500 to 6,000 if the House bill becomes law. The company said it is funding a radio advertisement in Indiana and Pennsylvania, which are home to some of its facilities, to raise questions about potential job losses under the bill.

Duncan blasted such ads.

"We want the American public to have full knowledge of what's happening here, the reality," he said in a telephone interview. Private lenders "have had a very sweet deal. . . . Our proposal is infinitely better for middle-class, working-class Americans."

The federal student loan program, designed to provide a secure source of college funds for young borrowers, is more than 40 years old. Since the early 1990s, colleges have been able to choose between direct government lending and private lending with a government guarantee against default.

Private lenders have a larger share of the market, but in recent months many colleges have migrated toward direct lending. As of Dec. 31, the Education Department reported $30.9 billion in direct loans originated for the current school year, up from $19.2 billion the year before -- a 61 percent increase. Federally guaranteed loan volume rose 6 percent in that time, the department reported, to $53.1 billion.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has not introduced his version of the measure passed by the House but has said he plans to move a bill "early this year." Some Democrats have raised questions about the bill, even though most appear to support its broad goals.

Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) has not endorsed the House legislation, according to spokesman Larry Smar, and is exploring alternatives. "There's a whole host of things he likes in the underlying bill," Smar said.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said, "It's inconceivable to me that the Congress would continue unwarranted subsidies to these lenders."

Source: What I Really Want to Say

The Gloves Are Coming Off...

&Quot;Working Americans pay while bankers get rich," Duncan said in a prepared statement. "Sallie Mae executives have paid themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in the last decade while teachers, nurses, and scientists -- the backbone of the new economy -- face crushing debt because of runaway college tuition costs..."We want the American public to have full knowledge of what's happening here, the reality," he said in a telephone interview. Private lenders "have had a very sweet deal. . . . Our proposal is infinitely better for middle-class, working-class Americans."

Meanwhile, Sallie Mae is set to run ads in Pennsylvania and Indiana regarding job losses they anticipate should the Administration's student loan reform legislation pass.  If I was in Wilkes-Barre, I might be a bit confused about job losses given recent statements: 

April 2009 :  Sallie Mae's Wilkes-Barre facility promised 600 new jobs in a CNBC interview in April of 2009 part of an announcement that 2,000 jobs were being brought to this country by Sallie Mae (recall that Obama unveiled his proposal to eliminate FFELP in February of 2009).  

"Bringing back 2,000 jobs to the U.S.; all the jobs that we have overseas."  "It is the right thing to do.  Communities in which we operate in the US are struggling with unemployment rates.  The fact is that we are able to bring these jobs back so we are."

From August 2009 :  “We remain committed to Wilkes-Barre,” Lord said. “We were here in April to announce 600 new jobs coming here and 300 are here already ahead of schedule and 300 more will be here soon.” 

---------------------------------

This New York Times article seems to have galvanized editorial desks in the past few days:

Remove middle man from college loans ( Miami Herald ):  " hat makes sense too often doesn't get done in Washington. Take the issue of federally-backed student loans for college.  President Obama wants to do away with the middle man -- banks and lenders like Sallie Mae -- and have universities and colleges deal directly with students and the federal government. This is how Pell Grants are awarded...If you care about saving $8 billion from the student-loan program and re-directing that money for other worthy education programs, contact Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and Republican Sen. George LeMieux.  It would be unconscionable for Florida's two senators to vote against this common-sense proposal." Private lenders should not leech off students ( Tufts Daily ):  "The debate surrounding this bill centers on the question of either valuing profits in the private sector or helping as many students as possible afford a college education. Obama strongly endorsed the bill in his State of the Union address, but it is stalled in the Senate, where the Democrats have recently lost their filibuster-proof majority, and Sallie Mae and other private lenders are lobbying hard against it. Hopefully, economic reason and interest in promoting education will prevail. The Senate cannot let private companies leech profits from the government at the expense of American students. Approve student loan reform:  Democrats need to stand firm against pressure from lobbyists ( Newark Star-Ledger ):  " But reports indicate big lenders such as Sallie Mae have been emboldened, perceiving weakness in the loss of the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority and the standstill on health care reform. Sallie Mae, the biggest student lender, is pouring millions into the effort to stop reform.  Democratic senators have to stand firm against the pressure. This is no time to go soft on a plan that would make life easier for college students and their families.

-------------------------------

Meanwhile, schools continue to vote with their feet.  Here were the schools announcing a move to Direct Lending today and their rationale for the switch:

University of Pennsylvania :  “Approximately 80 percent of Penn students who borrowed under the FFELP were forced to select new lenders in the past two years, and lenders continue to leave the market,” said Michelle Brown-Nevers, associate vice president for student services and university registrar. “These changes created confusion in the application, origination and servicing processes.”

“It got so that lender lists on our website were changing weekly, and the students really felt pushed around,” Sharon Pepe, senior director for credit services in Student Financial Services, said. “And the benefits of having multiple lenders to choose from—such as no origination fee or reduced interest rates for on-time payments during repayment—have disappeared.”

Direct Loans will offer students a single application process and reduced origination fees —.05 percent for the subsidized/unsubsidized Direct Loan, for example—making more of the loan funds available to the borrower to use for expenses.

Another benefit of Direct Loans is reduced interest rates. The rate of 7.9 percent for Direct PLUS loans for parents and Direct Grad PLUS loans for graduate and professional students is lower than the FFEL’s 8.5 percent.

“Another value of moving to Direct Loans is that the funds come directly from the federal government to the University, enabling the students to receive their money more quickly,” said Steve Golding, vice president for finance and treasurer. “Students will no longer need to wait for the lenders to disburse the funds.”

Northwestern University :  " Northwestern University is switching the way it offers federal student loans starting this fall, allowing students and parents to borrow directly from the government.  Northwestern had used the Federal Family Education Loan Program since the 1970s. Under that plan, borrowers got loans from private banks and credit unions.  But the tough economic times have forced some banks out of the program, and pending legislation could eliminate it completely."

Arne sounds delusional. I wonder if he was foaming at the mouth when making these comments? This is the new bipartisan approach that Washington has in store for you folks--my way or the highway! Sounds bipartisan doesn't it? What is the "new economy" by the way? Is that the one where European levels of unemployment and economic stagnation are the norm b/c the ruling class in DC thinks they can run things better than the people? If so, better get used to 9% unemployment!

Question for Tim: How is "voting with their feet" an appropriate description of what is happening to the FFELP? You seem to imply that schools have a choice in the matter. That's hardly the case as you know.

If there was a level playing field between 1995 and 2007 then there would have been a much more even balance between annual FFEL and DL volume, rather than the 85-15 dollar volume mix that was seen on the eve of the capital crunch. That was not in fact "schools voting with their feet." Congress threw up procedural, operational and fiscal barriers against DL competing evenly with FFEL. It was all carefully stacked in FFEL's favor for many years. The only real period of choice for schools was a few months during 1994. Now that that choice has been reinstated, it is shocking to FFEL which has been accustomed to a stacked deck for almost as long as anyone can remember. As Al Lord has said many times, most of these FFEL entities prefer to compete in Washington rather than competing in a business sense. Their top executives have traditionally not been experts in finance, banking, IT and customers service but rather former Congressional staffers.

Funny how when even 10% of the heavy handed FFEL tactics that were exerted all those years are now no longer exerted on behalf of FFEL there is surprise and dismay. The chickens are coming home to roost. Don't get too upset though; the bill Arne is supporting would still contain generous giveaways to FFEL guarantors and of course lender-servicers.

FFEL is the Washington controlled Euro patronage program. The DC ruling class has always supported FFEL; even in 1993 there were few if any Congressional votes for DL and it only got enacted as part of a much larger bill funding most of the federal government. Otherwise, why have the continual legislative and regulatory tinkering year after year for decades to maintain artificial "market" dominance? Why not just let competition reign? Because they don't know the meaning of the word. The military has used contractors for centuries and no one calls the military a Euro socialist operation. In fact, military folks are considered some of the most pro-USA patriots around. What is the difference between the military and DL? Instead of "DL lite" why not have the real thing -- with contractors that the American people can at least semi-monitor, rather than recipients of subsidies which cannot feasibly be monitored? There have been decades of opportunities to prove an indirect subsidy can function with even a small degree of program integrity, and the facts simply aren't there.

Craigie is a master of tiptoeing around the edges of the truth! Tell us Craigie, why was the Direct Loan Program introduced if not to ultimately "drive the money changers from the temple of higher education" as Teddy liked to proclaim whenever the opportunity presented itself? Today's environment for FFEL is the culmination of years of gradual Congressional undermining of the program. There's never a level playing field between the private sector and Congress Craigie. Since the days of FDR, Congressional meddling has played an ever-increasing role in how resources are distributed in our economy. The rise of the hated lobbyist is a direct result of this encroachment.

Al Lord and other FFEL executives were former Congressional staffers eh Craigie? Well, that's a new one! But, by all means Craigie, we should remove the G from all things higher education b/c you're right--federal subsidies are having a perverse affect on college affordability and access. When will the Congress and Obama introduce legislation that champions such enlightened thinking Craigie?

The conventional wisdom is that DL was introduced to provide some competition for FFEL, although it could be argued that at least some of the "talkers" were completely serious about going 100% DL at least until late 1994. If you talk to consumer bankers they will tell you that they missed a chance during 1990 or 1991 to take the lead themselves in supporting reform but instead thought they could ride out the status quo. They underestimated the grass roots resentment of the GSL model. That said, it is incorrect about the "undermining of the program." After the initial "full-scale DL" legislation in 1993, every legislative, regulatory and subregulatory effort included significant provisions to undermine DL and prop up the failed FFEL model. This culminated in the DRA of 2005/2006, which was apparently cooked up by some young GOP staffers over Thanksgiving 2005. Most people now know it as "HERA." HERA was the last gasp of a paid-in-full Washington crowd desperate to squash DL. However, the whole cycle could resume in Jan. 2011.

Al Lord was talking down to those with the Hill backgrounds and excluding himself -- although he is certainly overly modest, in public at least, about his own secondary connections on the Hill. No, he wasn't one of them, but, if you study who cleaned up during the "fat years" of the FFEL program, they were primarily ex-Hill staffers whose knowledge of how to serve borrowers and schools was second-hand, at best. (This may explain why some of them actually cashed in on the consolidation boom rather than dealing with schools at all.) They create loopholes from within the beltway and then emerge through the revolving door to exploit them financially. Not exactly the "free market."

It is one thing to choose between FFEL and DL. It is another thing to remove the nat'l gov't from postsecondary education financing entirely. That would mean ending both FFEL and DL. It wouldn't be an issue of FFEL vs. DL. They would both be phased out. Note that you can't say "G" because the states are heavily involved in postsec financing, and this long pre-dates the federal loan programs. As costly as the sticker price of some state colleges appear, they would be much higher without the state subsidizing expenses. Although some states have moved explicitly to a "high price/high aid" model (like the Ivy League), I don't know of any that charge the full cost of operations to the student. Ironically it would be a progressive dream to do so. Jerry Brown, the priviliged son of a Calif. governor, likes to mention how he attended U.C. Berkeley for a few dollars per semester. The "everything depends on need" crowd would insist that the likes of Jerry Brown would pay $120,000 per year so that a FAFA-type process could allow a sliding cost scale based on need. Think about this -- why should a coal miner or a fruit picker pay state taxes so that those tax revenues can subsidize the children of the elite to pay only $20,000 to go to State U?

Guess what Craigie? The states are broke. They won't be funneling billions to the schools anymore. They've got to pay off the public-employee unions who've been running up the tab on the taxpayer with impunity (until now that is). It's curious that Arne chose to lambast the million-dollar salaries of the lender fat cats isn't it? What about the high six-figure salaries that the university fat cats draw? Are they less worthy of criticism b/c they aren't "capitalists"? Hmmh? I guess we'll have to leave it up to your ability to sanitize the obvious inconsistencies and falsehoods that are inherent with the ideology that you espouse. The free-lunch model of governing is coming crashing down on your head. You're going to need a serious helmet to survive this one Craigie!

Look at the fastest growing portion of the states' budgets over the past 30 years -- health care, in particular the states' share of Medicaid. Any attempt to put that on state and county employees is an attempt to sanitize the reality.

I still don't know why anyone who wants to go to the mat for the failed FFEL model would want to get the government out of postsec ed. Talk about obvious inconsistencies and falsehoods . . . They should admit they are elitists and that they flatly believe that most Americans should not go to college. The USA's "higher ed libertarians" are actually European socialists who want a tracked system in which a tiny percentage of children are tracked from a young age to attend college. This "idea" would also incorporate the one-strike-and-you're-out aspect of the Euro system, where, unlike in the USA, a teen mother can't decide at age 30 to better herself and her family by getting into postsec ed. The track is the track.

Have to hand it to NAICU and its progeny for their pr success. Yes, there really should be a focus on finances of the not-for-profit colleges and universities and whether such entities really earn their tax exemptions. The small IRS office that monitors non-profit compliance is greatly understaffed and underresourced. Instead, these schools and their associations simply tell Washington and the state capitols, "just give us the money and don't ask us how we are using it, we are smarter than everyone else, and it is none of your business." In the 2002 recession, many states cut higher ed and their colleges and universities increased price tags. This still left the publics much cheaper than the privates, but the privates waged a successful pr battle on the "percentage" increase. (When your price goes from $30,000 to $35,000, that is par for the course, but, when your price goes from $5000 to $7500, then that is a percentage crisis, by this argument.) Public higher ed has a lot of overpaid patronage positions of all political stripes, but to ignore the waste and abuse in the nonprofit sector would be a huge error.

While many states have excellent pension programs, the solution is not to yet again protect the so-called "Greatest" Generation and the "Cry"-Baby Boomers while stripping all the Gen X and Gen Y benefits (something several cities and counties have already done to their workers) and creating a two-tier system. The pain should be imposed evenly across those with seniority, those without seniority, those already in retirement, and those who haven't even begun working yet.

Many developed nations are struggling with these demographic issues. Some have solved them without going to a national heath care program. Why can't the USA solve them? Or at least try? Why are so many people on both sides seemingly invested in failure and inaction rather than success? How will their grandchildren view them?

Until politicians are willing to take off the Santa Claus costume and tell the voters the realities, both conservatives and liberals will be expecting free lunch politics to continue. Oh yes, many conservatives and libertarians hate it when you point out that they are living off the government, both through direct appropriations and so-called tax expenditures (which impact the deficit equally).

I support FFEL b/c the alternative is worse. FFEL is far from perfect as I have attempted to make clear repeatedly. There's no contradiction here. As for your other contention, that I'm some sort of socialist or whatever, try again. I don't believe (as evidently you do) that government subsidies and micromanagement are the answer for getting all Americans into a home, a college, or an affordable health-care plan. The real world just doesn't work that way. If you want to make these things more affordable and available without any diminution in quality, you've got to let Americans do what they do best--use their freedom and grey matter to innovate and overcome the limitations that go along with the human condition.

Do I have an inherent economic problem with a libertarian housing world in which the only financing tool is five-year mortgages? No, but there's a better way. Funny how everyone believes they are self-made. Without the New Deal reforms, you would be a renter, I would be a renter, Tim would be a renter, almost everyone would be a renter, like Europe. That's the way it was, even during the "boom years" of the roaring 1920s. The mortgages that would be offered in the absence of anything else would be two to five years. Would prices decline a little in response? Yes. Not enough to help many people get into their own homes, though.

Does the mortgage interest deduction, one of the most costly and wasteful line items in the federal and state budgets, help get anyone into a home? No, not really. During the 1986 federal tax simplification reform debate, its only defenders were the realtor and developer associations, but that was enough to make this deduction one the few federal deductions and credits to survive the simplification reform act. Note that deductions for interest on credit cards, auto loans, student loans, etc. were repealed. TRA97 restored student loan interest deductions in a limited way. Note also that the elimination of the deduction for various types of consumer interest did not eliminate the ability for Americans to use credit cards or auto loans but merely saved a lot of money in the federal and state budgets.

You are evidently one of a tiny band of inside the beltway ideologues who believe the international credit crunch was caused by a small band of crafty poor, the CRA, Fannie Mae and Barney Frank. It is worth noting that the supposedly objective GAO was so bamboozled by tall tales from lenders that it concluded at one point not so long ago that the CRA was the main rationale for a lender to participate in FFEL. Go figure . . .

What you don't understand is that there is a difference between fixing a few externalities to allow the capitalist system to work and allowing a national based on anarchy, as you suggest. I have met others who believe the same thing -- having no laws is always better. Wouldn't having a congestion charge schedule with hardly any human involvement be better than using thousands of police and other officials? Wouldn't a commodities market of pollution trading be better than hordes of enviro inspectors and police? Yes, there should be periodic reviews of how the system is working, something we never see with FFEL. Yet, despite the lack of transparency in FFEL, there is constant tinkering at the high level by Congressional staff who may understand laws but have little to no understanding (or interest) in the challenges (or impossibilities) of implementing such changes.

Making all healthy Americans purchase and maintain health insurance is not "central planning" micromanagement but a way to allow the capitalist health insurance market to function with minimal gov't intervention. If you were an insurance company, would you jump at the opportunity (without government "subsidies") to participate in a risk pool filled only with aging Boomers and families with young children (who use a lot of medical services)? Nope. You would want to see a risk pool comprised of a good mixture of healthy and unhealthy people, or it would not be profitable.

Those who support doing nothing always have a footnote about "tax subsidies" to help people who have no insurance. Granted, some of the uninsured do earn a steady income. On the other hand, many, if not most, would not have enough income to receive the tax credit, and enacting hundreds of billions in new, refundable tax credits for 40 million Americans does not seem to be something that Boehner, McConnell and Palin would be eager to support, although it would be a nice giveaway to insurance companies, big pharma, the AMA, etc.

Eliminating health insurance would probably reduce medical costs in the long run but would be too painful and costly in the short run. Some have proposed forcing Americans who receive employer-based health insurance to report the whole thing as income, thinking this would force them into cheaper, flimsier health care by making them "feel" more of the true costs of health care. This might have worked 25 years ago, but even the government employees you revive are now covering almost half of the premiums, which in the distant past were 100% paid by the employer. This "reform" would also require a huge network of "insurance cops," similar to the workers comp investigators who try to catch people with bad backs going water skiiing. Imagine putting a tail on all the employees at Microsoft and Exxon to make sure that they aren't receiving a back-door insurance of some kind for any type of personal or family medical care. This type of thing happened when the income tax was first implemented. I really question the argument that giving people "free" health care makes them go to the doctor and hospital more than they should. I suspect someone who has been without insurance for many years will initially get more treatment in order to fix all the things that were untreated for years. There are "sick" individuals who enjoy going to the doctor and hospital and getting multiple treatments, but is that really the majority? Do you want to be in a workplace where people are ill because they can't go to the doctor, don't have child care, bring their sick children to work as well, etc.? The principle of perfect information would require better outcomes data -- proposed in the 1994 Clinton bill and even earlier than that. Apparently the American medical community is not even interested in something very basic like weather appendectomies are efficacious and prefer the anecdotal approach to "hard data." The many blockages to consumer data would unfortunately require more malpractice litigation, not less. The other option is for doctors and hospitals to open their charts to patients, but that ain't gonna happen without litigation. Again, is there any evidence that people pursue medical malpractice litigation for fun and profit? Nope. Personal injury law is one thing. That needs to be reined in. The difference is that PI cases involve healthy individuals who are injured by something. Lawyers will take those cases any time, on contingency. MedMal cases typically involve people who were already sick -- or they would not have sought medical treatment! Doctors will lie and say it was the patient's underlying illness. More importantly, say you are a juror. Who do you believe, the patient with the high school education, or the distinguished physician? It is unfairly difficult to succeed in malpractice litigation, and a true free market would use this process to weed out the bad apples -- hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. -- out of the business of medicine. The famous Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with one of the most renowned and distinguished collections of hospitals and physicians in the world, was a big malpractice litigation reformer. The medical community there is quite powerful and convinced the state legislature in 1985 to enact a "reform" which required anyone seeking to go to court to first get through a three-personal "panel" consisting of a doctor, a lawyer and a judge. In addition, the statute of limitations was strictly limited -- something that flew in the face of national trends which recognize that sometimes the patient does not notice the damage for more than three years, and takes time to develop the evidence.

The evidence that still, after everything that has happened, no one in FFEL is serious about reform, is the vehement protest of introducing a tiny bit of capitalism into FFEL -- an auction process. The FFEL auction process for parent PLUS had lots of problems in the details; that is no reason to block the idea itself. If they say that it can't work because there is no capital, then FFEL itself cannot work, and must end. The reality is that the highly "open" postsec system in the USA has expanded faster than the amount of capital to supply education loans. In retrospect it depended on a temporary international credit bubble to make it through the 2000-2008 period. Starting back in the late 1980s banks were either refusing to use depository assets to fund GSLs or were simply taking advantage of govt largesse to leverage overseas sources of capital and warehousing. In any case, the ones that gave interviews said they were using depository assets to fund some types of loans, but government guaranteed loans would be funded from other sources of capital -- sources which did not turn out to be permanent. Most in both parties are uncomfortable with appearing to be against the idea of America as the land of opportunity, so the possibility of slashing the percentage of Americans who pursue postsec education seems like non-starter. As long as there is a government guarantee, is it not too much to demand that lenders use depository assets to make FFEL loans and use their "alternative sources of capital" to make the "market rate" loans where the taxpayer has no stake?

Your simplistic, naive view overlooks that the great American fortunes, such as shipping and railroads, always were based on government subsidies. The free market past never really existed, and it is not too much to ask that, if the gov't is going to continue its multi-hundred-year role in choosing winners and losers, then it begins to divide its attention more evenly between handoffs to those already near the top and those trying to climb the ladder. Most who support trickle-down are already on record as saying average Americans are so dumb that they spend and invest poorly ("wasting it"), so we have to trust the haves to take care of us. That is kind of an elitist approach. It came into play in the recent arguments about the efficacy of sending a check to every family. The conservative elitists said that most Americans would just use it to buy plasma TVs or, even worse, would use it to pay down debt; they argued that giving it to the wealthy would result in greater investment and more jobs. Yeah, those firms and companies who received the bailouts really primed the economic pump with those cash bonuses they "invested in."

Source: Student Lending Analytics Blog