First, I’m not completely certain you aren’t looking at a civilian contract position, in which case what I have to say will not apply. But if you are considering enlisting in the Military, please consider these notes:

1. DO NOT TRUST/BELIEVE a recruiter without doing some research. In the past, their job performance depended on how many people they got signed up. What happened to the recruits after they sign on the line is not their primary concern. It is imperative that you understand EVERY aspect of your contract before you sign, because once you do sign, it is a painful experience to attempt to get something corrected (if it can even proven that the contract is wrong). The saddest words are “But my recruiter said…” It is important you talk to people who are currently serving, and even then, realize that everyone has a different experience.

2. The availability of a specific job to you depends on:
a. your ASVAB score
b. the job availability
c. your willingness to relocate for it.
For example, if the Vet tech position you want requires an ASVAB score of 80 or better, and you only score a 79…that job will not be available to you. And yes, you can retake the ASVAB to try and get a higher score.
If there are only 10 vet tech positions at a given location, and they are currently filled, your chances of being able to get the training for that job is VASTLY reduced if not nil.
If your only chance for an open position is in Alaska….guess where you’ll be going…
Also, some jobs are not available to reservists, only to active duty.

3. In years past, the basic term of enlistment is for 8 years. For Active Duty, it was 4 years on active duty, and 4 years in the Inactive Ready Reserve (the IRR, ie. the people that get called up to fill holes in units being deployed).
On the reserve side it is 6 years active service with 2 years in the IRR. I say that because I haven’t heard of a two year option. Consider that basic training and your job specific training can take from 5 months to a year depending.

4. Enlistment Bonuses depend ENTIRELY on the job demand. If the vet tech is in high demand, expect to see a good cash bonus for sign on, a student loan repayment offer (SLRP). If there is no demand for Vet tech, expect to get very little or no cash bonus for signing up and no SLRP. The bonuses exist to funnel people into high-demand positions.

5. The much-vaunted Post 9/11 GI Bill is a great program…IF you have been deployed overseas for a total of 36 months. Having been overseas for less than 18 months myself, I only qualify for 60% of the Post 9/11 GI Bill and get more benefit from the older GI Bill programs. Just because it is there doesn’t mean you’ll get any use out of it.

Here’s what we did–First, if you haven’t already, see if your wife qualifies to get the student loans consolidated separately (public/private separate), fixed interest rates, and a maximum time you will pay (25 years or whatever the current rules are). Get rid of credit cards, create a budget (sounds like you may have already done this). Treat the student loan payments like a budget item, not a debt item. (similar to a mortgage–you’ll just pay it off like a mortgage). It might help to each get X dollars every 2 weeks to spend without checking with each other. Other than that amount, everything else has to be on the budget. Pay off any other debts you have (smaller ones, higher interest rate ones). Create an emergency fund–use your tax refund, found money, gifts, etc. for this purpose. Then make extra payments to the student loans as you can.

My husband and I joke that we already bought our second house and our new cars with the student loans (we do have a small house, but it’s mortgage is cheaper than most rent where we live). Losing sleep isn’t going to do you any good. Yes, the astronomical debt sometimes makes me lose sleep, too, but I try to dwell on the positive (I keep a positive journal to remind me).

If things like not having a vacation or wanting a specific item bug you, you could try a short-term second job. When we wanted a vacation, I took a night teaching job teaching the LSAT review course 2x a week for 3 months. It was hard, but since it was short term, I found I could make it through. We have also tutored, answered a call in customer service line, worked retail during a busy season. I think the key to this is #1-a definite period of time. #2-a specific purpose.

I’d also try reading several of the books Trent recommends. Maybe something (or parts of several somethings) will click for you as things you can do to help your situation specficially.

Finally, go back and read Trent’s initial posts on when he was drowning in debt. There may be things there you can use.

It is true that when abortion was relegalized, crime rates dropped (and continued to decline) 15-25 years later, even when controlling for all other factors. This interesting statistical fact has led some researchers to conclude that SOME abortions by mothers in unstable situations prevented unwanted children from having a rough childhood and ending up in prisons. I have read the study you’re talking about (and others). This is a supported conclusion.

But there is absolutely no data that this “type” of abortion/abortion decision comprises a bulk of abortions. Your extrapolating the stud to conclude “the kind of people for whom abortion is usually a serious consideration also happen to be the kind of people most likely to give birth to the next generation’s criminals and drug addicts” is completely illogical and unsupported.

I wish I had the money to go to law school and become an elder law attorney.

At a benefit, the same dynamics are in place, but the musicians are volunteering their time (in which they could be gigging to make money, not save their friend’s life). The money goes to them, and they decide what they do with it. Geez. Now of course they’ll promote the show and play the sympathy card, but I can’t think of a single thing wrong with that, unless you’re against compassion and helping people in general.

I guess you might not be going out to hear live music that night already, but a large segment of our population is, and they’re the ones that benefit concert is geared toward. Musicians tend to associate with people who like music. They’re throwing a concert, which has monetary value. I’m sure I’m repeating my point more than is necessary for most people, but I’m sure some people will find a way to disagree. I’m not saying you can’t feel good about your charitable donation at a benefit concert, but somebody is doing actual work if you look hard enough for it. I’m really shocked by the outrage.

If we hadn’t been spending money to give cancer patients extra time for decades, cancer would still be an automatic death sentence. That $300,000 giving someone an extra year of life may well be the money that leads to a cure for that type of cancer. I look at it as an investment.

you don’t want to give? Don’t give. Nobody has a gun to your head.

But the attitudes and comments–seriously. Let’s hope you never need any outside assistance.

And who are you, quite frankly, to even judge another’s worthiness?

Yea, there are scammers out there, that’s why you do due diligence and vet any organization before contributing.

And here’s a flash for some of you critics: Most people would rather die, and many do, than ask for help from anyone. And many of those people have incurred high medical bills due to the greediness of the medical community and how they are billed and treated. It’s not their choice.

I, too, have worked hard for what I have. But I feel that it’s only human to help where you can and that when I stop looking at my fellow man as my equal, despite circumstances, I cease to be human.

Frankly, I have more of an issue in paying taxes for things I do NOT support personally (wars!) than I have in giving a few bucks to a local charity for someone in my community or elsewhere.

The idea that people who need help are slackers, lazy and not working is just nonsense. Especially in today’s world which is filled with working poor.

A close friend is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale. Worked hard in the corporate world. Saved. And when divorced, got screwed royally by the crazy ex. Child custody involved living in a small town where there was next to no work. She scrounged for years. God forbid she had gotten ill during then. She might have needed help as others have. Would you have called her a lazy slacker?

The viciousness of the comments is something that is so disheartening to me. Especially in a time when more and more people need help and we are being royally screwed by businesses left and right.

Save that skepticism and negativity and direct it towards the organizations that deprive people of their rights, humanity and a living. Maybe then it would be warranted.

And good luck if your life changes. May Karma work for you.

The topic that launched this discussion, in case you’ve forgotten, was Jan’s description of people in her/his community organizing a benefit concert to help offset their friend’s medical bills. Now, that might not be a cause that you or Jan would care to support, and that’s fine. But if holding a benefit concert isn’t “lifting a finger,” then what is?

Like, about one THIRD of US taxes are spent on the military (i.e., two stupid wars). I don’t see you complaining about *that*.

Gimme a break, indeed!

It’s funny that you think you know so much about me. “Born on third base?” Hardly. I worked my butt off for everything I have, and for what? To see my taxes go up so more and more freebies can be handed over to do-nothing deadbeats too lazy to help themselves.

I wasn’t born on third base, but you’re right, I did have some advantages (white, male, stable upbringing). But I still had to WORK to do something with those advantages. I may have had it a little easier than most, but that’s no excuse for those with more obstacles to just give up and go home crying. I have no patience for people who won’t even lift a finger to help themselves, and would rather whine and complain about how much easier “others” have it, as though the universe is supposed to be perfectly fair to everyone, and they’re thus entitled to whatever it takes to restore equity in society. Gimmie a break.

from the Dickens classic, A Christmas Carol:

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.

Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?

First Collector: Plenty of prisons.

Ebenezer: And the union workhouses – are they still in operation?

First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.

Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I’m very glad to hear it.

First Collector: I don’t think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.

Ebenezer: Why?

First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?

Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!

Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?

Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.

********
the chain you are forging in this life will be long and heavy indeed in the next.

When you are dead who will care how much you paid in taxes? No one’s tombstone marks their aftertax earnings, or how late they stayed at the office, or what healthcare plan they had.

It’s so interesting to me that your little rant didn’t even address my comment. Not only were you “born on third base and go through life thinking you hit a triple” but you want to eliminate anyone who had the temerity to strike out. As for those in the dugout or who didn’t even make it to into the ballpark…. well, they don’t deserve to be in the game. Get rid of ‘em.

Does that about sum it up for you?

Long story made short, she has become disillusioned with our law system and she no longer wants to be a lawyer.

That story needs to get longer. She can’t return her education for a refund, so she needs to pay for it. You can’t pay for it while you’re paying for everything else. Despite her distaste for the profession she chose during her education, it sounds like she needs to keep looking for work in that profession until she finds something.

On the bright side, the idea that she only has to do this until her student loan debt is paid off may motivate her to be frugal – the sooner the debt is paid, the sooner she can stop doing something she hates. (The fact that she hates it may also motivate her to find something else that pays well enough to cover her debts, and the more experience she gains at her futuer job in law, the more likely she’ll be able to find something else)

As for how you convince her of this without causing a lot of anger and resentment – I’ve got precious little help for you there. Perhaps a good nonprofit credit counselling service can provide you with the support of a disinterested third party who can help convince your wife to go back into law. Maybe they could even see another way out of your mess that I don’t.

“This fiasco reveals much about what’s wrong with public policy discourse in modern America. Fifteen minutes of Googling would have shown book reviewers of Freakonomics that the abortion-cut-crime theory hadn’t come close to meeting the burden of proof, but, instead, much of America’s intellectual elite fell head over heels for this theory. Being largely innumerate and unenterprising, the punditariat is unable or unwilling to apply simple reality checks to complex models. It’s easier to simply engage in intellectual hero-worship and take a guru figure like Levitt on faith. A few book reviewers, like James Q. Wilson (America’s leading expert on crime for several decades), expressed deep skepticism, but most were negligent.
Now, two economists have redone Levitt’s work and found two fatal flaws in it. The Economist has a good summary here:

Oops-onomics
Dec 1st 2005
Did Steven Levitt, author of “Freakonomics”, get his most notorious paper wrong?

And the Wall Street Journal reports:
“‘Freakonomics’ Abortion Research Is Faulted by a Pair of Economists
By JON E. HILSENRATH
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 28, 2005; Page A2″

“This fiasco reveals much about what’s wrong with public policy discourse in modern America. Fifteen minutes of Googling would have shown book reviewers of Freakonomics that the abortion-cut-crime theory hadn’t come close to meeting the burden of proof, but, instead, much of America’s intellectual elite fell head over heels for this theory. Being largely innumerate and unenterprising, the punditariat is unable or unwilling to apply simple reality checks to complex models. It’s easier to simply engage in intellectual hero-worship and take a guru figure like Levitt on faith. A few book reviewers, like James Q. Wilson (America’s leading expert on crime for several decades), expressed deep skepticism, but most were negligent.

Now, two economists have redone Levitt’s work and found two fatal flaws in it. The Economist has a good summary here:

Oops-onomics
Dec 1st 2005
Did Steven Levitt, author of “Freakonomics”, get his most notorious paper wrong?

And the Wall Street Journal reports:

“‘Freakonomics’ Abortion Research Is Faulted by a Pair of Economists
By JON E. HILSENRATH
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 28, 2005; Page A2″

“Your cruel abortion comment is backed up by nothing but ignorant assumption.”

Actually, the statistics support it. I didn’t come up with that idea on my own – it was explained in detail, with supporting statistics, in “Freakonomics,” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. You should read it.