And even if cleared, everyone still thinks he's guilty.
Ask a random person on the Left about the Duke lacrosse players. Even though they were exonerated... not just found not guilty... and the prosecutor was put in jail, and the accuser is now in jail, most progressives still think something happened, and their lives are ruined.
I don't pay student loans. Do you know why? I don't have them. I went to an inexpensive local school, worked while going to school, and took the public bus to and from it. (I was fortunate enough to be able to live with my parents.)
While I don't know your situation, it's hard for me to feel sorry for someone who went to an expensive private school, lived on campus in a "country club" atmosphere, and then expects the Taxpayers to cover it.
You say you don't know anything about his situation but then you go on to heavily speculate about his situation.
I'm in your situation btw. I worked through undergrad and grad school and had my work pay for almost all of my school so I never had any debt. But I realize I was lucky and had a good situation lined up and not everyone has the same opportunities. Some people need more assistance than others, and I don't mind if the govt helps those folks out.
I think it's more that students are allowed to take loans that they can't possibly service. Since you can't get out of loans via bankruptcy and the loans are backed by the federal government, loan agencies have no reason to make sure borrowers are qualified. When they issue big loans to women's studies and philosophy majors, they don't assume any of the risk that's rightfully theirs. That's where the abuse happens. Students, in their ignorance, take on more than their fair share of risk.
Talking about "taxpayers" is disingenuous at best - the private loan holders are the ones that made the unwise loans and should be directly losing out. To the extent that these private parties have agreements with USG guaranteeing they'll be bailed out, then the proper time to object to that corrupt arrangement was when it was being made!
Debt, in general, must be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Otherwise the practice is equivalent to the gradual reinvention of slavery. Student loans already run afoul of this principle - let's not double down on the corruption merely to delay writing down losses that have already occurred.
Student loans are not dischargable because there is nothing that can be repossessed and you don't want to allow graduates declaring bankruptcy at 21 to wipe out the debt. (Most people with large debt would be better served to immediately declare bankruptcy than to even attempt paying them off.)
Under such a system, once lenders stopped lending, college would again become available primarily to the wealthy.
Yes, that is the justification that the private lenders bought the law with. But it doesn't refute my point.
From a policy standpoint, if the realities make it impractical for lenders to lend then papering over those incentives is effectively doubling down on a bad idea. Compromising in order to encourage more of something generally results in system feedback consuming the desired change, with the downsides of the compromise remaining.
Fewer college loans would mean that society would have to adapt elsewhere - the K-12 schools couldn't punt any substantive learning until "college", employers couldn't insist on pedigree degrees for every job, the value in funding state universities would be respected, etc.
As we're fast finding out, our societal addiction to credit does not help people actually afford things, but creates a de-facto-mandatory system of wealth extraction from the powerless.
What if the realities make it practical and profitable to lend if that debt is not dischargeable, but make it impractical to lend if that debt is dischargeable?
In such a case, it seems worth exploring whether society overall and different segments are better or worse off with each policy.
I think that's the case we're in, and even though it would likely help me personally and help my kids, I don't want to return to a world where a pedigree degree is even more restricted to those with, well, pedigrees.
The specific realities that I was referring to are that a college education is expensive and expected to be self-funded. While non-discharagability makes it more practical to lend, it does not affect either of those underlying conditions! Instead, it just delays their realization, basically reinventing indentured servitude with college replacing the boat.
>>I was fortunate enough to be able to live with my parents.
Um, you added this as an afterthought, but it's by far the biggest expense. We're talking probably around $500 per month on average (if you live with others) plus utilities, not to mention food. So you were able to save around $1000 per month living with parents - and that's a conservative estimate.
There's a trillion dollars of liability we're talking about. I'm OK with some forgiveness, but if and only if the Government gets out of the student loan business. (Watch tuition drop like a rock if this happens!)
And if guarantees for the loan companies are removed and the inability to free yourself from it in bankruptcy. Essentially move the 100% of the risk that borrowers currently have and move a nice portion of it to the lenders so they both bear the burden of the loans can't be repaid.
Imagine if banks had zero risk when providing home loans. I don't think it would be too difficult to buy a house you couldn't afford and quickly the price on homes would be driven up. The student loan industry is so completely fucked and needs to be reformed before it ruins our economy.
And if guarantees for the loan companies are removed and the inability to free yourself from it in bankruptcy.
Then why would the loan companies do student loans at all except at exorbitant rates (thereby making the responsible students pay more for those who aren't excluded altogether)?
They wouldn't. That's the point. You shouldn't be able to borrow $150k+ without some collateral or a 20% down payment.
I believe that if this happened, you'd see tuition rates plummet. But it won't until some catastrophic economic event occurs because the student loan industry is predatory and corrupt. Essentially ruining people's lives by selling them a lie in the name of "investing in your future."
