7 ms·

I'm really torn on this for the same reason I'm torn on what to do with the people in jail for marijuana offenses: On the one hand, yes what's happening is wro

by gxs 10y ago

I'm really torn on this for the same reason I'm torn on what to do with the people in jail for marijuana offenses: On the one hand, yes what's happening is wrong. On the other hand, you CHOSE to go into debt knowing that you would have to repay it after you graduated. Just like people who CHOSE to deal marijuana KNEW it is illegal. Disagreeing with the law doesn't entitle you to break it. Similarly, disagreeing with your loan terms doesn't entitle you to not pay them. I CHOSE to go to a cheap state school to avoid this fiasco. Now others who didn't choose prudently get "relief"? At one point do we just say, hey, you made shitty choices, sorry. Where is that line? I'm not saying we shouldn't do something, just offering up a different point of view.

imgabe 10y ago
You would seriously keep people in jail for marijuana charges after marijuana was legalized? If a mistake is made, remedy the mistake. The government made a mistake in providing a glut of cheap money and prohibiting the borrowers from discharging the debt in bankruptcy. They need to fix their mistake by undoing that. What you're proposing is like abolishing slavery, except for everyone who is currently a slave. "Sorry guys, there will be no NEW slaves, but you were slaves when it was legal, so, tough"
- gxs 10y ago
  Your response doesn't make any sense. Throw a hissy fit all you want about your pot, but you KNOW it's illegal and if you choose to ignore that that's on you. Same as with loans. You choose to take out the loan, that's on you. If I choose to run my car into a crowd I suffer the consequences, not Chrysler. (And yes, I realize this analogy isn't perfect) And comparing this to slavery is plain stupid. That is an issue much greater than this regarding equality for everyone. You didn't have a choice to be born a slave. And here I don't even necessarily agree with not helping these people - I just want the issue addressed of where we draw the line between poor decision making and poor choices.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  That description bears similarities to how slavery was constrained in the US: The international slave trade was abolished in 1800, but existing slaves, and their children, could still be kept, bought, and sold, until 1863.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The international slave trade was abolished in 1800, but existing slaves, and their children, could still be kept, bought, and sold, until 1863. 1865 (with the ratification of the 13th Amendment), actually.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Well, if you want to go there, technically slavery is still legal, but only as a punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        The point about 1865 is that 1863 refers to a military order that applied only to the states in rebellion. There were, IIRC, on the order of 50k permanent chattel slaves in the Union that were not affected by the application of the proclamation to rebel states as the Union secured control of them, and we're only freed by the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
logfromblammo 10y ago
You are correct. Disagreeing with the law obligates you to break it. Or at least it does according to Thoreau, Jefferson, Gandhi, ML King Jr, et al. But the difference between a law and a promissory note is that the legislature didn't get your explicit approval before passing the law. The promissory note has your signature on it, under a promise that you made to pay a certain amount at a certain time in exchange for valuable consideration. The note is a contract, and you can make any contract you like. But we do have rules for the types of contracts that the state will help to enforce. The parties to the contract have to be competent, and the contract can't force anyone to do anything illegal, and everybody has to understand what they are agreeing to. If it was, indeed, a "shitty choice" to take a loan that you couldn't reasonably pay back, there may be an argument there that the contract was lopsided and unconscionable from the start, and being forced to repay it on the original terms would be rewarding bad behavior on the part of the lender. Defaulting on a loan because you now disagree with the terms is less ethical than dealing weed because you disagree with cannabis prohibition. You should really support clemency for nonviolent drug offenses before considering forgiveness of student loan debts. One is a matter of being forced to live under the (somewhat arbitrary and capricious) edicts of the powerful, and the other is about breaking promises after already realizing the benefits from making them.
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  This is kind of bullshit. The problem is assuming that borrowers are fiscally competent. We know this to be false, even among home buyers. 18 year olds, who have every adult that they trust telling them they must go to college and take these loans, don't stand a chance. The loan industry not only knows this, but they optimize the system to capitalize on it. I don't think the student was represented when laws were passed to prevent discharges in bankruptcy. A professional loan officer just has to fool some kid one time, and closing that 15 minute deal often destroys that kid's entire adult life. We provide Donald Fucking Trump more protections from financial disasters than well-meaning students who have never had a loan or investment in their life. Coincidentally, he is one of the many who are exploiting this system, with Trump University existing for little other purpose than siphoning this taxpayer-guaranteed free money. Then when the cards inevitably collapse, half of the population eats up the propaganda about "personal responsibility". Personal Responsibility would be not taking idiotic risks and getting the government to pay for it. I can assure you that approximately zero students took out loans thinking they wouldn't be able to repay them. But we know the lenders knew better, because they won't give out these loans without a cosigner and/or a government guarantee.

by gxs 10y ago

imgabe 10y ago

You would seriously keep people in jail for marijuana charges after marijuana was legalized? If a mistake is made, remedy the mistake. The government made a mistake in providing a glut of cheap money and prohibiting the borrowers from discharging the debt in bankruptcy. They need to fix their mistake by undoing that. What you're proposing is like abolishing slavery, except for everyone who is currently a slave. "Sorry guys, there will be no NEW slaves, but you were slaves when it was legal, so, tough"

gxs 10y ago
Your response doesn't make any sense. Throw a hissy fit all you want about your pot, but you KNOW it's illegal and if you choose to ignore that that's on you. Same as with loans. You choose to take out the loan, that's on you. If I choose to run my car into a crowd I suffer the consequences, not Chrysler. (And yes, I realize this analogy isn't perfect) And comparing this to slavery is plain stupid. That is an issue much greater than this regarding equality for everyone. You didn't have a choice to be born a slave. And here I don't even necessarily agree with not helping these people - I just want the issue addressed of where we draw the line between poor decision making and poor choices.
dredmorbius 10y ago
That description bears similarities to how slavery was constrained in the US: The international slave trade was abolished in 1800, but existing slaves, and their children, could still be kept, bought, and sold, until 1863.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The international slave trade was abolished in 1800, but existing slaves, and their children, could still be kept, bought, and sold, until 1863. 1865 (with the ratification of the 13th Amendment), actually.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Well, if you want to go there, technically slavery is still legal, but only as a punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      The point about 1865 is that 1863 refers to a military order that applied only to the states in rebellion. There were, IIRC, on the order of 50k permanent chattel slaves in the Union that were not affected by the application of the proclamation to rebel states as the Union secured control of them, and we're only freed by the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

logfromblammo 10y ago

You are correct. Disagreeing with the law obligates you to break it. Or at least it does according to Thoreau, Jefferson, Gandhi, ML King Jr, et al. But the difference between a law and a promissory note is that the legislature didn't get your explicit approval before passing the law. The promissory note has your signature on it, under a promise that you made to pay a certain amount at a certain time in exchange for valuable consideration. The note is a contract, and you can make any contract you like. But we do have rules for the types of contracts that the state will help to enforce. The parties to the contract have to be competent, and the contract can't force anyone to do anything illegal, and everybody has to understand what they are agreeing to. If it was, indeed, a "shitty choice" to take a loan that you couldn't reasonably pay back, there may be an argument there that the contract was lopsided and unconscionable from the start, and being forced to repay it on the original terms would be rewarding bad behavior on the part of the lender. Defaulting on a loan because you now disagree with the terms is less ethical than dealing weed because you disagree with cannabis prohibition. You should really support clemency for nonviolent drug offenses before considering forgiveness of student loan debts. One is a matter of being forced to live under the (somewhat arbitrary and capricious) edicts of the powerful, and the other is about breaking promises after already realizing the benefits from making them.

lawnchair_larry 10y ago
This is kind of bullshit. The problem is assuming that borrowers are fiscally competent. We know this to be false, even among home buyers. 18 year olds, who have every adult that they trust telling them they must go to college and take these loans, don't stand a chance. The loan industry not only knows this, but they optimize the system to capitalize on it. I don't think the student was represented when laws were passed to prevent discharges in bankruptcy. A professional loan officer just has to fool some kid one time, and closing that 15 minute deal often destroys that kid's entire adult life. We provide Donald Fucking Trump more protections from financial disasters than well-meaning students who have never had a loan or investment in their life. Coincidentally, he is one of the many who are exploiting this system, with Trump University existing for little other purpose than siphoning this taxpayer-guaranteed free money. Then when the cards inevitably collapse, half of the population eats up the propaganda about "personal responsibility". Personal Responsibility would be not taking idiotic risks and getting the government to pay for it. I can assure you that approximately zero students took out loans thinking they wouldn't be able to repay them. But we know the lenders knew better, because they won't give out these loans without a cosigner and/or a government guarantee.