3 ms·

Better question: Why shouldn't they? These are almost all going to be, by definition, disadvantaged people who have been lied to and defrauded. Yes, they 'ch

Better question: Why shouldn't they? These are almost all going to be, by definition, disadvantaged people who have been lied to and defrauded. Yes, they 'chose' to do this, but the staggering amount of misleading advertising (and the worst kinds of sleazy-salesman lies & emotional manipulation of the vulnerable) leaves plenty of doubt as to how much of a choice they had. I see very little difference between helping these people and helping storm victims. Nearly all for-profit education (that made a profit, anyway) is an ugly disaster and should never have been allowed to go on so long. The government actually did something right here for once.

douche 10y ago
If you're going that route, strip every asset ITT owns, auction it off, and distribute the proceeds to students.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Which amounts to some rented buildings, some tables and chairs, and ...
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    That and seek damage from the people who orchestrated the defrauding. This was a "for profit" institution, follow the profit to the CEO and others.
qaq 10y ago
Because it's hard to draw the line, how do you disincentivize undesired behaviour if you pick up the tab for any stupid thing anyone does?
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  One, an excessive focus on trying to "disincentivize undesired behaviour" is pretty creepy and controlling. Two, this is not a matter of poor life decisions, this is a matter of fraud. Three, even if people are impoverished by stupidity, you're either gonna pick up the tab to some extent or literally watch them die of destitution on the street. It appals me sometimes how often America treats this like it was a choice.
  - qaq 10y ago
    I have no problem with people exercising free will, now if they expect someone else to pay for the consequences thats a different topic. It is a choice none forces anyone to not do a basic google search before dropping huge amount of money on something.
  - ahallock 10y ago
    But forcing others to pay isn't controlling? I agree they were victims of fraud, but you should still not force others to pay for that at gunpoint. There must be a more peaceful way. And saying "literally watch them die of destitution on the street" is just a cheap, emotional straw man. No one is saying that.

douche 10y ago

If you're going that route, strip every asset ITT owns, auction it off, and distribute the proceeds to students.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Which amounts to some rented buildings, some tables and chairs, and ...
- sqeaky 10y ago
  That and seek damage from the people who orchestrated the defrauding. This was a "for profit" institution, follow the profit to the CEO and others.

qaq 10y ago

Because it's hard to draw the line, how do you disincentivize undesired behaviour if you pick up the tab for any stupid thing anyone does?

JulianMorrison 10y ago
One, an excessive focus on trying to "disincentivize undesired behaviour" is pretty creepy and controlling. Two, this is not a matter of poor life decisions, this is a matter of fraud. Three, even if people are impoverished by stupidity, you're either gonna pick up the tab to some extent or literally watch them die of destitution on the street. It appals me sometimes how often America treats this like it was a choice.
- qaq 10y ago
  I have no problem with people exercising free will, now if they expect someone else to pay for the consequences thats a different topic. It is a choice none forces anyone to not do a basic google search before dropping huge amount of money on something.
- ahallock 10y ago
  But forcing others to pay isn't controlling? I agree they were victims of fraud, but you should still not force others to pay for that at gunpoint. There must be a more peaceful way. And saying "literally watch them die of destitution on the street" is just a cheap, emotional straw man. No one is saying that.