4 ms·

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 a

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.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>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. Many people aren't so fortunate.
- scarface74 10y ago
  And many people are but decide they want the "freedom" of being out of their parents house and the local cheap college is g good enough for them.
saboot 10y ago
What are you covering? Student loans can't be discharged. The govt makes a substantial amount of money from student loans as it currently is.
Kluny 10y ago
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.
mindslight 10y ago
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.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  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.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Student loans never brought university education to the masses. Cheap-as-free state universities did that.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    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.
metaobject 10y ago
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.
- UpDownLeftRight 10y ago
  Right. And you may not mind if 'the government' helps them out, but the people who fund 'the government' might.
vilmosi 10y ago
You lived with your parents. You didn't pay for rent or food or bills. Good for you, really, but it's hard for me to take that as genuine advice.

enraged_camel 10y ago

>>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. Many people aren't so fortunate.

scarface74 10y ago
And many people are but decide they want the "freedom" of being out of their parents house and the local cheap college is g good enough for them.

saboot 10y ago

What are you covering? Student loans can't be discharged. The govt makes a substantial amount of money from student loans as it currently is.

Kluny 10y ago

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.

mindslight 10y ago

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.

sokoloff 10y ago
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.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Student loans never brought university education to the masses. Cheap-as-free state universities did that.
- mindslight 10y ago
  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.

metaobject 10y ago

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.

UpDownLeftRight 10y ago
Right. And you may not mind if 'the government' helps them out, but the people who fund 'the government' might.

vilmosi 10y ago

You lived with your parents. You didn't pay for rent or food or bills. Good for you, really, but it's hard for me to take that as genuine advice.